To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Oklahoma comprehensive water plan report on the West Central Watershed Planning Region

DRAFT
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
West Central
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardDRAFTDRAFT
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
West Central Watershed Planning RegionDRAFT
Contents
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
OCWP Provider Survey 27
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Limitations Analysis 30
Primary Options 30
Demand Management 30
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 30
Reservoir Use 30
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 31
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 31
Expanded Options 31
Expanded Conservation Measures . 31
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 31
Marginal Quality Water Sources 31
Potential Reservoir Development 31
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 45
Basin 17 . 37
Basin 18 . 47
Basin 19 . 57
Basin 20 . 67
Basin 59 . 77
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
West Central Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the West Central Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O tool, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demands, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the OCWP Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.
Regional Overview
The West Central Watershed Planning Region includes five basins (numbered 17-20 and 59 for reference). The region encompasses 5,262 square miles in western Oklahoma, spanning all of Custer County and parts of Ellis, Dewey, Roger Mills, Blaine, Beckham, Washita, Kiowa, Comanche, Caddo, and Canadian Counties.
The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province. The terrain varies from rough, marked with high sand hills and deep erosion in the north, to lush pasture and rolling river bottoms.
The climate of the region is generally mild with average monthly temperatures varying from 59°F to 64°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 22 inches in the west to 28 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 62 to 65 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Weatherford (2010 population 10,280), Clinton (8,810), and New Cordell (2,960). The greatest demand is from Crop Irrigation water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 110,300 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 31,000 AFY (38%) from 2010.2 West Central Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
West Central Regional Summary
The West Central Region accounts for about 4% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Crop Irrigation (68% of the regional total).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 16% of the region’s demand. Basins 17, 19, and 59 are projected to have surface water supply shortages in the future. The region is supplied by two major rivers: the Washita River and the Canadian River. Historically, the rivers and creeks in the region have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers to provide public water supply, flood control, and recreation. Significant reservoirs in the West Central Region include Fort Cobb Reservoir (supplies the Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District) and Foss Reservoir (supplies the Foss Master Conservancy District).
Relative to other regions, surface water quality in the region ranges from poor to good. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes, including the major rivers, are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfates, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
Surface water in the Washita River (Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20) is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts. Basin 59, containing the Upper Canadian River, is expected to have available surface water for new permitting to meet local demand through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 15% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater withdrawals in the region are from the Washita River aquifer and the Canadian River aquifer. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur throughout the year, although these projected depletions will be small to moderate relative to the amount of water in storage. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Synopsis
The West Central Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on bedrock groundwater, and to a lesser extent, surface water supplies (including reservoirs) and alluvial aquifers.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand.
Surface water supplies will be typically insufficient to meet demand in several basins.
Groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and potentially, changes to well yields or water quality.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps and storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps, alluvial groundwater storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Aquifer storage and recovery could be considered to store variable surface water supplies, increase alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage, and reduce adverse effects of localized storage depletions in Basins 18 and 20.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing new small reservoirs could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage.
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
West Central Region Demand Summary
Current Water Demand:
79,679 acre-feet/year (4% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Crop Irrigation (68% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
16% SW
15% Alluvial GW
69% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
110,304 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
30,625 acre-feet/year (38%)West Central Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 69% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Rush Springs aquifer, Ogallala aquifer and non-delineated minor aquifers. The Rush Springs aquifer has about 67 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Additionally, the Ogallala aquifer has about 5.7 million AF of groundwater storage in the Region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year, but will be largest in the summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage, but may lead to adverse impacts on pumping costs, yields, and/or water quality.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water Supply Limitations
West Central Region
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
regional gaps and storage depletions. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state and identified five potentially viable reservoir sites in the region. These water sources could serve as out-of-basin supplies to provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of groundwater. This may result in minimal increases in projected groundwater storage depletions.
This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
West Central Region
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the region.
Users that rely on surface water, without significant reservoirs, are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should be considered. The development of additional bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- term water supply option. Over time, the Rush Springs and Ogallala aquifers may no longer be the most cost-effective source of supply in the basins if water levels decrease.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily from increased irrigation efficiency and increased conservation by public water suppliers, could reduce gaps and storage depletions, and in Basins 20 and 59 could eliminate bedrock groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of groundwater supplies, temporary drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option.
New small reservoirs (50 AF or less of storage) could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and could decrease gaps. Basin 59 has unallocated streamflow and could develop larger reservoirs to decrease local and potentially West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5
6 West Central Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically satisfied about 16% of the demand in the West Central Region. The region’s major streams include the Upper Washita and the Upper Canadian. Many streams in this region have historically experienced periods of very low flows, although periodic flooding events can also occur.
The Canadian River, located in the northern area of the region, consists of a long mainstem beginning in Texas and stretching across much of the state of Oklahoma, with 160 miles of the mainstem located in Basin 59. There are no major tributaries to the Canadian River located in the region.
The headwaters of the Washita River are located in Texas with the mainstem flowing through the southern and eastern portion of the West Central Region; 530 miles of the Washita River mainstem are located in Oklahoma with 250 miles in the West Central Region. Major tributaries in the West Central region include Cobb Creek (20 miles).
In the West Central Region, streamflow is generally low. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. Reservoirs in the region with water supply yield include: Fort Cobb Reservoir, built in 1959 on Cobb Creek by the Bureau of Reclamation; Foss Reservoir, built in 1961 on the Upper Washita by the Bureau of Reclamation; and Clinton Lake, built on the Washita River by the City of Clinton in 1931. Other reservoirs in the region include Crowder Lake, Dead Warrior Lake, and Sportsman Lake. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, flood control and recreation.
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Surface water sources supply about 16% of the demand in the West Central Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
West Central Region
Reservoirs
West Central Region
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted
Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Clinton
19
City of Clinton
1931
WS, R
3,980
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Crowder
18
State of Oklahoma
1959
FC, R
2,094
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Dead Warrior
20
City of Cheyenne
1959
FC, R
977
---
---
0
0
0
0
0
No Known Yield
Fort Cobb
18
Bureau of Reclamation
1959
FC, WS, FW, R
80,010
78,350
18,000
0
0
0
0
18,000
0
Foss
20
Bureau of Reclamation
1961
IR, FC, WS, FW, R
256,220
165,480
18,000
0
0
0
0
17,634
366
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, HP= Hydroelectric Power, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation
No known information is annotated as “---”West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Significant reservoirs in the West Central Region include Crowder, Dead Warrior, Fort Cobb, Foss, and Clinton. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
West Central Region8 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
West Central Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
17
18
19
20
59
AFY
Average Annual Flow
309,900
23,500
259,000
121,400
174,300
Minimum Annual Flow
40,200
0
43,800
19,700
4,400
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
Wells in this formation range from 200 gpm to 500 gpm. The water is hard to very hard and of a generally calcium magnesium bicarbonate type, and TDS values are usually less than 1,000 mg/L. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 17, 19, 20, and 59.
The Canadian River aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thicknesses range from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range between 100 and 400 gpm and between 50 and 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with TDS concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basins 19, 20, and 59.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Hennessey-Garber, Southwestern Oklahoma, and Western Oklahoma aquifers. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas
Groundwater Resources
Four major bedrock aquifers, the Elk City, Ogallala, Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, and Rush Springs, underlie the West Central Watershed Planning Region, along with two major alluvial aquifers, the Canadian River and Washita River.
The Elk City aquifer is comprised of fine-grained, friable sandstone with a maximum thickness of about 185 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) of water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial purposes.
The Ogallala aquifer, the most prolific aquifer in the state, underlies only the western portion of Basins 20 and 59. The Ogallala consists predominantly of semi-consolidated sediment layers. The depth to water ranges from less than 10 feet to more than 300 feet below the land surface and the saturated thickness ranges from nearly zero to almost 430 feet. The Ogallala commonly yields 500 to 1,000 gpm and can yield up to 2,000 gpm in thick, highly permeable areas. Due primarily to significant crop irrigation use, groundwater is pumped out of the aquifer at rates significantly exceeding recharge, causing declining water levels throughout much of the aquifer. However, in areas of Roger Mills County, water levels have increased. The equal proportionate share has been set at 1.4 AF/acre for the portion of the aquifer underling Ellis and Dewey Counties, but a study has not been completed for the portion of the Ogallala underlying Roger Mills. Water quality of the aquifer is generally very good. In local areas, water quality has been impaired by high concentrations of nitrate.
The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 19. Availability of groundwater in the Limestone Hills is erratic due to faulting and folding. Most wells are 500 feet
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.or deeper and wells and springs yield as much as 100 gpm. Water from the Limestone Hills area is generally very hard and fluoride concentrations typically exceed the drinking water standard, limiting use for public supply.
The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting its use for drinking water. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 17, 18, 19, and 59.
The Washita River aquifer consists of silt and clays grading into fine to course sand. The formation deposits average 70 feet in thickness. not served by rural water systems, but may not have sufficient yield for high-volume users.
Groundwater Resources
West Central Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills
Bedrock
Major
1%
0.3-0.6
3,300
79,000
temporary 2.0
34,600
Canadian River
Alluvial
Major
15%
2.0
28,000
1,829,000
temporary 2.0
954,000
Elk City
Bedrock
Major
2%
2.8
8,600
809,000
1.0
69,600
Ogallala
Bedrock
Major
14%
0.9
65,500
5,795,000
1.4 to temporary 2.0
846,000
Rush Springs
Bedrock
Major
32%
0-1.8
348,100
67,329,000
temporary 2.0
1,729,800
Washita River
Alluvial
Major
8%
2.7-3.2
66,300
2,982,000
1.5-2.0
453,200
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
7%
2.25
0
654,000
temporary 2.0
483,100
Western Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
1%
300
NA
temporary 2.0
50,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
7,100
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
50,100
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Major bedrock aquifers in the West Central Region include the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, Elk City, Ogallala and Rush Springs. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Canadian River and Washita River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.
Groundwater Resources
West Central RegionWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basin 59. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the West Central Region in 2060. For groundwater, each aquifer’s equal proportionate share (EPS) determines the amount of water available for permits. Equal proportionate shares in the West Central Region range from 1 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the West Central Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Groundwater Permit Availability
West Central Region
Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the West Central Region.
Surface Water Permit Availability
West Central Region
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basin 59. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the West Central Region. 12 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the West Central Watershed Planning Region is defined by two major river systems, the Canadian and Washita Rivers, and numerous local water supply/flood control reservoirs. The majority of the region is contained within the Central Great Plains (CGP) ecoregion, with some Southwestern Tablelands (SWT) influence in the far northwestern corner. It is bordered by the Cross Timbers ecoregion and other CGP ecoregions, but their influence is minimal and will not be addressed.
The region is dominated ecologically by the Rolling Red Hills ecoregion. The area has steep hilly relief and breaks, with intermixed gypsum karst features. It is dominated by rangeland with predominately mixed/short grass prairies, and lowland wooded areas. It extends from the western border through over three quarters of the region��s geographical area and is drained by the Canadian and Washita Rivers, represented by stations at McClure and Cordell. Streams throughout the area are mostly sand or sand/silt bottom with low/moderate gradients and incised banks. Flood control/water supply lakes include Foss, Clinton, and Vanderwork. Salinity is high with mean conductivity values ranging from 1,860 (McClure) to 2,250 uS (Taloga). The Canadian has similar mean concentrations for chloride (500 ppm) and sulfate (490 ppm). However, the Washita is sulfate-dominated, with means ranging from 842 (McClure) to near 1,000 ppm (Cordell), while chloride averages around 65 ppm. Reservoir salinity is variable. Conductivity at Vanderwork (1,700 uS) and Foss (2,100 uS) are comparable to the Washita. However, conductivity of 525 uS at Clinton is low. In the Canadian drainage, total nitrogen and phosphorus mean concentrations are low at values of 0.90 and 0.09 ppm. However, the Washita River is eutrophic and higher, with mean total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations range from 1.61 and 0.16 (McClure) to 2.00 and 0.34 ppm (Cordell). Lakes are phosphorus limited and eutrophic (Foss) to hyper-eutrophic (Clinton, Vanderwork). With a mean turbidity of 15 NTU, water clarity is very good in the Canadian River. Conversely, clarity is poor in the Washita drainage with mean turbidities of 56 (McClure) and 61 NTU (Cordell). Lake clarity is poor to good, with average Secchi depths of 23 cm (Clinton) to near 100 cm (Vanderwork). Ecological diversity is low throughout both drainages due to salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation.
The remaining quarter of the region is characterized mostly by the Cross Timbers Transition (CTT), and to a lesser extent, the Pleistocene Sand Dunes. The CTT is a hybrid mix of rough plains covered by prairie grasses and oak/elm and cedar forests, with cropland/rangeland as major land uses. Streams are typically rockier. Along the northern Canadian River, the Pleistocene Sand Dunes have more permeable sandy soils, interlaced with springs and inter-dune wetlands, with stream substrates to the Rolling Red Hills. The area is characterized by the Washita
The West Central Planning Region is dominated by the ecoregions of the Central Great Plains with some Southwestern Tablelands influence in the northwest corner. Surface water quality is generally poor to good depending on drainage and location.
Ecoregions
West Central Region
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters.
and Canadian drainages, and water supply/flood control lakes, including Fort Cobb, American Horse, and Crowder Lakes. Salinity decreases in a trend that will continue east. River mean conductivity is 1,380 (Canadian) to 1,675 uS (Washita). Lake conductivity of around 225 (American Horse) to 500 uS (Fort Cobb) is analogous to the Cross Timbers. Crowder remains high at around 900 uS. Total nitrogen (1.24ppm) and phosphorus (0.22) mean concentrations increase along the Canadian. On the Washita, total nitrogen decreases to 1.62 ppm, while total phosphorus remains stable at 0.36 ppm. Both rivers are hyper-eutrophic. Likewise, Fort Cobb and Crowder have high nutrient concentrations, and are eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic. Unique for the CGP, American Horse is oligotrophic, with low nutrient concentrations of 1.00 (nitrogen) and 0.05 ppm (phosphorus), Water clarity is fair to poor with turbidity means of 40 (Canadian) and 75 NTU (Washita). Lake clarity is average to good, with mean Secchi depths of 58 (Fort Cobb) to 118 cm (American Horse). Ecological diversity increases due to lower salinity but still impacted by habitat degradation and sedimentation.
Finally, the Cimarron/Canadian Breaks ecoregion of the SWT extends into the far northwestern corner. It is characteristically rugged, with a variety of hills, buttes, canyons, and escarpments, underlain by sandstone/siltstone. Numerous springs support a variety of ecosystems in lowland areas. Lake Vincent has moderately high salinity (conductivity = 825 uS). Vincent is mesotrophic, with comparatively low nitrogen (0.60 ppm) and phosphorus (0.02 ppm). Water clarity is good with a Secchi
Water Quality Standards Implementation
West Central Region
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has begun a watershed implementation project on Fort Cobb Lake to address the sources of the lake’s impairments, including sediment, nutrient and bacterial pathogens. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed TMDL studies on Bear Creek, Commission Creek, Deer Creek, Willow Creek, and Canadian River.14 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Impairments
West Central Region
Regional water quality impairments are based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Excessive levels
of nutrients and turbidity are producing impacts. Groundwater from the Rush Springs aquifer has nitrate and sulfate
concentrations that exceed drinking water standards in some areas, limiting its use for drinking water.
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired
when its quality does not meet the
standards prescribed for its beneficial
uses. For example, impairment of the
Public and Private Water Supply beneficial
use means the use of the waterbody
as a drinking water supply is hindered.
Impairment of the Agricultural use means
the use of the waterbody for livestock
watering, irrigation or other agricultural
uses is hindered. Impairments can exist
for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife
Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program
(BUMP), established in 1998 to
document and quantify impairments of
assigned beneficial uses of the state’s
lakes and streams, provides information
for supporting and updating the
OWQS and prioritizing pollution control
programs. A set of rules known as “use
support assessment protocols” is also
used to determine whether beneficial uses
of waterbodies are being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after
impairments have been identified, a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is
conducted to establish the sources of
impairments—whether from point sources
(discharges) or non-point sources (runoff).
The study will then determine the amount
of reduction necessary to meet the
applicable water quality standards in that
waterbody and allocate loads among the
various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s
water quality conditions, see the most
recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP
Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report, a
comprehensive assessment of water
quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes
required by the federal Clean Water Act
and developed by the ODEQ.
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan West Central Regional Report 15
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use
for Public/Private Water Supply
West Central Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use
for Agriculture
West Central Region
Depth of 68 cm and can be excellent in streams.
Ecological diversity is fair but remains impacted
by salinity.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality
program does not exist in Oklahoma, various
aquifer studies have been completed, and data are
available from municipal authorities and other
sources.
The West Central region is underlain by several
major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers.
In most western Oklahoma alluvial aquifers,
water quality is good, and except for hardness
and localized nitrate problems, the water is
appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial
and municipal use.
Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the
Ogallala, Elk City, Rush Springs Sandstone and
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group. The Ogallala
aquifer extends into the northwestern portion
of the region. Water quality of the aquifer is
generally very good and can be used for most
purposes. The Elk City aquifer lies along a
portion of the southern border of the region and
is comprised of fine-grained and very friable
sandstone. Water is generally considered suitable
for most purposes. The Rush Springs Sandstone
extends into the east and central portion of the
region. Although comparatively hard, most of the
water derived from it is suitable for most uses,
with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally
less than 500 ppm. However, chloride, sulfate,
and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking
water standards in some areas. Lastly, the
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group extends into the
southern tip of the region and is characteristic
of the Limestone Hills area. It sometimes
contains hydrogen sulfide gas and is very hard,
calcium bicarbonate water, with total dissolved
solids ranging from 195 to 940 ppm. Where
permeability is high, water in the Arbuckle-
Timbered Hills Group may be suitable for
industrial use. Because fluoride concentrations
generally range from 1.6 to 17 ppm and exceed
drinking water standards, public water supply
use is limited.
16 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.
Surface Water Protection Areas
West Central Region
Special OWQS provisions are in place to protect surface waters. Because Lake Thomas is a public water supply reservoir and has a relatively small watershed, it could potentially benefit from a SWS designation. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.
Groundwater Protection Areas
West Central Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. The Elk City aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable, while the Canadian River and Washita River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable.18 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
West Central Region
Site
Canadian River near Bridgeport
Washita River near Anadarko
Washita River near McClure
Parameter
All Data Trend (1948-1993, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1964-1993, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1969-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the West Central Region are:
Significant upward trend for recent nutrient data throughout the region•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout the region•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
West Central Region
Site
Clinton Lake
Fort Cobb Lake
Foss Lake
Parameter
(1995-2004)
(1995-2009)
(1996-2005)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the West Central Region are:
Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a on Clinton and Foss reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for conductivity on Clinton and Fort Cobb reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Clinton Reservoir• 20 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
The West Central Region’s water needs
account for about 4% of the total statewide
demand. Regional demand will increase
by 38% (30,600 AFY) from 2010 to 2060.
The majority of the demand and growth in
demand over this period will be from the Crop
Irrigation sector, with significant growth also
coming from the Oil and Gas sector.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to remain
the largest demand sector in the region,
accounting for 62% of the 2060 demand.
Currently, 5% of the demand from this
sector is supplied by surface water, 14% by
alluvial groundwater, and 81% by bedrock
groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops
in the West Central Region include pasture
grasses and wheat.
Municipal and Industrial demand is projected
to account for approximately 11% of the total
2060 demand. Currently, 52% of the demand
from this sector is supplied by surface water,
5% by alluvial groundwater, and 43% by
bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account
for approximately 11% of the 2060 demand.
Currently, 59% of the demand from this
sector is supplied by surface water, 13% by
alluvial groundwater, and 29% by bedrock
groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demand is projected
to account for approximately 8% of the
2060 demand. The Public Service Company
of Oklahoma’s Southwestern plant and the
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative’s
Anadarko plant are large users of water
for thermoelectric power generation in the
region. Currently, 61% of the demand from
this sector is supplied by surface water, 37%
by alluvial groundwater, and 2% by bedrock
groundwater.
Livestock demand is projected to account for
6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 6% of the
demand from this sector is supplied by surface
water, 19% by alluvial groundwater, and 75%
by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the
region is predominantly for cattle for cow-calf
production, followed distantly by hogs.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is
projected to account for 2% of the 2060
demand. Currently, 33% of the demand
from this sector is supplied by alluvial
groundwater and 67% by bedrock
groundwater.
There is minimal Self-Supplied Industrial
demand in the region on a basin scale.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region,
accounting for 68% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
West Central Region
West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
West Central Region
The West Central Region’s water needs account for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 38% (30,625 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation sector, with significant growth also coming from the Oil & Gas sector.
Total Water Demand
by Sector
West Central Region
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
nSelf-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
nSelf-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system are included in the SSI sector. Available water use data and employment counts were included in this sector.
nOil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as self supplied industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
nMunicipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
nLivestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
nCrop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, and then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.
Total Water Demand by Sector
West Central Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
54,160
6,090
9,800
2,610
20
1,820
5,180
79,680
2020
57,080
6,180
10,210
4,060
20
1,880
5,780
85,220
2030
60,000
6,280
10,530
5,690
20
1,940
6,440
90,900
2040
62,920
6,370
10,840
7,660
20
1,990
7,190
97,000
2050
65,170
6,460
11,120
9,950
30
2,040
8,020
102,780
2060
68,770
6,560
11,380
12,540
30
2,090
8,950
110,30022 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.
The West Central Region includes 36 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.)
In terms of population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Weatherford, Clinton, Caddo Co RWD #3, New Cordell Utility Authority, and Burns Flat PWS. Together, these five systems provide service for about 62 percent of the population served by public water providers in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution
Public Water Providers
West Central Regionto residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Population Served
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
85
856
899
932
964
997
1,019
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
222
507
497
497
486
486
497
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
63
196
196
206
206
215
215
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
321
109
119
119
119
129
129
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
125
2,525
2,607
2,676
2,717
2,785
2,827
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
77
358
367
387
406
416
425
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
300
5,453
5,684
5,863
6,039
6,218
6,378
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
207
150
150
150
150
150
150
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
97
534
554
564
573
583
593
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
132
1,612
1,679
1,737
1,785
1,843
1,891
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
186
778
778
778
778
778
778
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
299
9,057
9,482
9,870
10,266
10,557
10,818
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
144
597
616
636
646
665
675
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
204
405
424
433
453
462
472
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
106
997
1,045
1,087
1,131
1,163
1,191
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
139
129
126
126
126
129
131
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
135
276
286
296
306
315
325
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
141
673
703
722
742
762
782
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
110
27
29
29
29
31
31
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
95
915
959
998
1,038
1,068
1,093
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
245
266
266
276
276
286
286
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
88
469
469
469
469
469
469
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
138
2,193
2,292
2,361
2,430
2,499
2,568
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
208
1,068
1,123
1,150
1,191
1,219
1,246
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
294
205
205
205
205
211
211
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
60
874
874
884
894
915
925
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
101
2,933
3,032
3,111
3,161
3,230
3,279
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
351
800
800
800
800
800
800
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
148
300
300
300
300
300
300
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
50
179
179
179
179
179
179
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
207
197
192
192
192
197
202
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
87
1,261
1,319
1,377
1,434
1,473
1,511
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
161
750
727
727
727
738
762
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
175
1,126
1,161
1,191
1,208
1,237
1,258
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
151
10,138
10,614
11,050
11,487
11,817
12,108
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates date was taken from 2007 Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.
Population and Demand Projection Data
Provider level population and demand projection data, developed specifically for OCWP analyses, focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.24 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Projections of Retail Water Demands
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.
Public Water Providers Demand Forecast
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
82
86
89
92
95
97
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
126
123
123
121
121
123
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
14
14
15
15
15
15
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
39
43
43
43
46
46
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
354
365
375
380
390
396
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
31
32
33
35
36
37
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
1,832
1,910
1,970
2,029
2,090
2,143
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
35
35
35
35
35
35
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
58
60
61
62
63
64
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
238
248
257
264
272
279
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
162
162
162
162
162
162
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
3,031
3,173
3,303
3,436
3,533
3,620
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
96
100
103
104
108
109
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
92
97
99
103
105
108
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
118
124
129
134
138
141
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
20
20
20
20
20
20
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
42
43
45
46
48
49
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
106
111
114
117
120
123
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
0
0
0
0
0
0
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
3
4
4
4
4
4
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
97
102
106
110
114
116
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
73
73
76
76
79
79
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
46
46
46
46
46
46
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
339
354
365
375
386
397
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
248
261
267
277
283
290
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
68
68
68
68
70
70
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
59
59
59
60
61
62
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
332
343
352
358
366
371
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
315
315
315
315
315
315
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
50
50
50
50
50
50
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
10
10
10
10
10
10
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
46
44
44
44
46
47
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
123
129
134
140
144
147
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
135
131
131
131
133
137
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
221
228
233
237
243
247
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
1,711
1,791
1,865
1,938
1,994
2,043
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers.
Public Water Providers Wholesale Transfers
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
City of Clinton
O
T
BESSIE
OK3007504
Foss Reservoir
Washita RWD 2
O
O
T
T
BUTLER
OK3002001
Foss Reservoir MCD (via Hobart)
O
T
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Gotebo
Cyril
Lawton
T
T
T
CLINTON
OK1010828
City of Arapaho
O
T
Foss Reservoir MCD
O
T
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer County RWD #3
O
T
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer City PWS
O
T
FORT COBB MCD
None
Anadarko WTP (Basin 16, Lower Washita Region)
Chickasha
(Basin 16, Lower Washita Region)
O
O
R
R
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD
OK1010829
Butler
Clinton
Bessie
Hobart
Frontier Dev Auth
New Cordell Utility Auth
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Hobart
(Southwest Region)
Foss Reservoir MCD
O
T
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Caddo Co RWD #3
O
T
HAMMON
OK3006503
Beckham Co RWD #3
O
T
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Roger Mills RWD #2 (Red Star)
O
T
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Foss Reservoir MCD
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Leedey
O
T
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Bessie
O
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System26 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010)
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
---
---
---
---
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
516
0%
0%
100%
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
---
---
---
---
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
320
---
---
100%
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
447
0%
0%
100%
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
---
---
---
---
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
4,793
0%
0%
100%
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
320
0%
0%
100%
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
153
0%
0%
100%
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
839
0%
0%
100%
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
434
100%
0%
0%
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
2,178
76%
0%
24%
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
236
0%
0%
100%
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
443
0%
0%
100%
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
400
0%
100%
0%
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
320
0%
72%
28%
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
232
0%
0%
100%
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
215
0%
0%
100%
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
18,000
100%
0%
0%
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
459
0%
100%
0%
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
17,634
100%
0%
0%
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
---
---
---
---
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
51
0%
100%
0%
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
368
0%
100%
0%
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
1,974
0%
0%
100%
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
324
0%
0%
100%
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
---
---
---
---
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
226
0%
0%
100%
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
2,371
0%
0%
100%
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
1130
0%
0%
100%
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
100
0%
100%
0%
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
138
0%
0%
100%
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
341
0%
16%
84%
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
1,133
0%
0%
100%
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
717
0%
0%
100%
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
640
0%
0%
100%
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
4,446
0%
0%
100%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems.
Caddo County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Camargo RWD 2 (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: none identified.
Town of Canute (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: treatment plant expansion and upgrades.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Carnegie (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Emergency source: Caddo County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Cheyenne (Roger Mills County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Cheyenne City Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main line to town.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Clinton (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Clinton Lake, Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Arapaho (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Clinton
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add storage.
Town of Arnett (Ellis County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace well motors; add main shut-off valves.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines.
Town of Bessie (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Foss Reservoir, Washita County RWD 2
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Bridgeport (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells; Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Burns Flat PWS (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replacement or rehabilitation of town’s infrastructure.
Town of Butler (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Corn PWA (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace lines from wells to town.
Custer City PWS (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer, Purchased water
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New wells and infrastructure improvements.
Custer County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs aquifer, Custer City PWS.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New wells and other infrastructure improvements.
Dewey County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: redrill existing wells.
Eakly Development Corp. (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add water main lines.
Town of Fort Cobb (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Fort Cobb Reservoir MCD (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Cobb Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Provider Survey
West Central Region28 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Town of Foss (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Foss Reservoir MCD (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Rehabilitation of intake structure and tanks; replace pumps.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Frontier Development Authority (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Gotebo (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Caddo County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Hammon (Roger Mills County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beckham County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tower.
Town of Hinton (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Roger Mills RWS & SWMD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines, pumps & valves.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Taloga (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Thomas (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Vici (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines.
Washita County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines; replace distribution system lines.
City of Weatherford (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hydro PWA (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Leedey (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Roger Mills RWD 2
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Mountain View PWA (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
New Cordell Utility Authority (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Elk City Sandstone Aquifer, Foss Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new pump system.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: increase line capacity from Foss Reservoir.
Roger Mills RWD 2 (Red Star)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace or add distribution lines.
Roger Mills RWS & SWMD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace & add distribution lines.
OCWP Provider Survey
West Central RegionWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Infrastructure Cost Summary
West Central Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$62
$324
$74
$460
Medium
$37
$101
$85
$223
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$4
$87
$91
Total
$99
$429
$246
$774
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 or fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category refers specifically to rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $774 million is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure • needs of the West Central region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur between 2021 and 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 85% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 12% of the • total costs.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.30 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations.
Marginal Quality Water Sources
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use.
A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state along with a determination of feasibility. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations.
Potential Reservoir Development
Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and feasible regional public supply systems.32 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP reservoir viability study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified).
This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
West Central Region
Name
Category
Stream
Basin
Purposes1
Total Storage
Conservation Pool
Primary Study
Updated Cost Estimate2
(2010 dollars)
Surface Area
Storage
Dependable Yield
Date
Agency
AF
Acres
AF
AF/Y
Hydro
4
Canadian River
59
WS, R, F&W
0
20,400
700,000
114,934
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$744,954,000
Mountain View
3
Washita River
19
R, FC, F&W, WS
344,000
9,388
150,000
50,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$162,176,000
Oakwood
3
Canadian River
59
WS, F&W, R
0
22,800
680,000
100,000
1981
Bureau of Reclamation
$710,907,000
Rainy Mountain
3
Rainy Mountain Creek and Sugar Creek
19
FC, WS, F&W, R
211,200
6,739
65,000
5,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$113,201,000
Weatherford
3
Deer Creek
59
WS, R, F&W, FC
162,933
2,751
43,475
14,500
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$120,434,000
1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 The majority of cost estimates were updated using estimated costs from previous project reports combined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only.
Reservoir Project Viability Categorization
Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development.
Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability.
Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development.
Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information.
Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Expanded Water Supply Options
West Central RegionDRAFT
35
BASIN 17
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
West Central Watershed Planning Region
Basin 1736 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 17 Summary
Basin 17 accounts for about 17% of the water demand in the West Central Watershed Planning Region. About 51% of the 2010 basin demand is in the Crop Irrigation demand sector. Thermoelectric Power (39%) is the second-largest demand sector. Surface water and out-of-basin supplies currently satisfy about 38% of the total water demand in the basin. Groundwater satisfies about 62% of the total water demand in the basin (46% bedrock aquifer and 16% alluvial). The peak summer month total water demand in Basin 17 is about 6 times the winter demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern.
Historically, the flows of the Washita River at Anadarko are typically greater than 9,000 AF/month. However, the river can have prolonged periods of low flow in any month of the year. The Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District currently supplies water out-of-region to the City of Anadarko, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative’s Anadarko power plant, and the City of Chickasha in Basin 16 (Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region), and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma also has a power generating plant in Basin 17 and receives its water from Ft. Cobb Reservoir (through the City of Anadarko), as well as from a smaller privately owned reservoir on Leeper Creek, and from the Rush Springs aquifer. Surface water in the basin is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 17 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
Future development of additional groundwater supplies is expected to be mostly from the Crop Irrigation and Thermoelectric demand sectors. The Rush Springs and Washita River aquifers have a combined total of approximately 4.8 million acre-feet of water in storage in the basin. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues. However, localized areas with high levels of nitrate and fluoride have been found in the Rush Springs aquifer and may occur in Basin 17. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060.
Current Demand by Source and Sector
West Central Region, Basin 17
Total Demand
13,330 AFY
BASIN 17
Synopsis
Most water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on the basin’s alluvial and bedrock aquifers or out-of-basin supplies.
By 2020, surface water gaps may occur during summer months with low streamflows.
Water quality is a potential concern for surface water users.
Surface water in the basin is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts.
Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020, but will be minimal in size relative to aquifer storage in the basin. However, localized storage depletions may cause adverse effects for users.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that storage depletions and gaps be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could mitigate surface water gaps and reduce the adverse effects of storage depletions.
Use of dependable groundwater supplies and/or developing additional small reservoir storage could mitigate surface water gaps. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage. West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
of localized storage depletions. Because surface water in the basin is fully allocated, substantial permit issues must be resolved in order to construct larger reservoirs.
Increased reliance on surface water supplies through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, will likely increase surface water gaps. Also, surface water in the basin is fully allocated. Therefore, this water supply option is not recommended.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies could be used to offset future demands on surface water, but would increase groundwater storage depletions. Any increases in storage depletions would be minimal relative to the volume of water stored in Basin 17’s portion of the Rush Springs aquifer and Washita River aquifer.
The projected 2060 water demand of 20,230 AFY reflects a 6,900 AFY increase (52%) over the 2010 demand. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation and Thermoelectric Power demand sectors.
Gaps & Depletions
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020. Surface water gaps will be up to 450 AFY by 2060. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions will be up to 180 AFY by 2060. Surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions will occur in spring and summer and will have a 9% probability of occurring in at least one month of these seasons by 2060. Bedrock groundwater storage depletions will be 1,810 AFY on average in 2060 and occur in summer. Projected annual alluvial and bedrock storage depletions are minimal relative to volume of water stored in the major aquifers underlying the basin. However, localized depletions may occur and adversely affect well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs.
Options
Water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on groundwater supplies. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, storage depletions and gaps should be decreased where economically feasible.
Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors could reduce gaps and storage depletions. Due to the low probability of gaps, temporary drought management could be effective at reducing surface water use and subsequent gaps. Temporary drought management activities are not expected to be needed for groundwater demand, since groundwater storage could continue to provide supplies during droughts.
Out-of-basin supplies could be developed to supplement the basin’s water supplies and mitigate gaps. The Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District (MCD) is expected to continue to meet the demand of its users in the basin and in the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region. Fort Cobb MCD is currently fully allocated; therefore, the district may not be able to meet future needs or demands. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified five potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the West Central Watershed Planning Region. Alternative sources of out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective compared to using the abundant in-basin groundwater resources for users not using supplies from the MCD.
Small reservoirs (less than 50 AF) could be used to meet the demand of surface water users or groundwater users experiencing adverse effects
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
West Central Region, Basin 17
Demand Management
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Reservoir Use
Increasing Supply from Surface Water
Increasing Supply from Groundwater
nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary
Water Supply Limitations
West Central Region, Basin 17
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant
BASIN 17
Median Historical Streamflow
at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
Projected Water Demand
West Central Region, Basin 1738 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 17 Data & Analysis
Historical Precipitation
Regional Climate Division
Surface Water Resources
Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the potential range of future surface water supplies. The Washita River at Anadarko had a prolonged period of below-average streamflow from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, corresponding to a period of below-average precipitation. The mid 1980s through the mid 2000s had a prolonged period of higher than average streamflow and precipitation, demonstrating the hydrologic variability in the basin.
The range of historical streamflow at the • basin outlet is shown by the average, median and minimum streamflow over a 58-year period of record. The median flow in the Washita River at Anadarko is greater than about 9,000 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 26,000 AF/month in May and June. Historically, Basin 17 can have periods of low flow in any month of the year, except June. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 17 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
There are no significant reservoirs in the • basin.
BASIN 17
Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
nPrimarily Measured Flows
nMeasured/Synthesized Flows
nSignificant Synthesized Flows
Streamflow Data Source
West Central Region, Basin 17West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
BASIN 17
Groundwater Resources
The majority of current groundwater • rights in Basin 17 are from the Rush Springs aquifer, which has about 4.5 million AF of storage, underlies 82% of the basin, and receives an estimated 18,000 AFY of recharge. There are also water rights in the Washita River aquifer and non-delineated minor bedrock aquifers in Basin 17.
There are no significant groundwater • quality issues in the basin.
Groundwater Resources - Aquifer Summary (2010)
West Central Region, Basin 17
Aquifer
Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Basin
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Washita River
Alluvial
Major
5%
3,300
254,000
2.0
10,800
Rush Springs
Bedrock
Major
82%
25,800
4,517,000
temporary 2.0
194,300
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
6%
0
17,000
temporary 2.0
12,800
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
N/A
0
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
N/A
400
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.40 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
Water demand in Basin 17 accounts for • about 17% of the total demand in the West Central Region and will increase by 52% (6,900 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand over this period will be from the Crop Irrigation demand sector. However, the largest growth in demand will be in the Thermoelectric-Power Demand Sector.
Surface water and out-of-basin supplies • are used to meet 38% of the total demand in Basin 17 and its use will increase by 58% (2,930 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of surface water use and growth in surface water use over this period will be from the Thermoelectric Power demand sector.
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet • 16% of the total demand in Basin 17 and its use will increase by 68% (1,470 AFY). The majority of alluvial groundwater use and growth in alluvial groundwater use over this period will be

DRAFT
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
West Central
Watershed Planning Region
Oklahoma Water Resources BoardDRAFTDRAFT
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Report on the
West Central Watershed Planning RegionDRAFT
Contents
Statewide OCWP Watershed Planning Region
and Basin Delineation
Introduction 1
Regional Overview . 1
Regional Summary 2
Synopsis . 2
Water Resources & Limitations 2
Water Supply Options . 4
Water Supply . 6
Physical Water Availability . 6
Surface Water Resources 6
Groundwater Resources . 9
Permit Availability 11
Water Quality 12
Water Demand . 20
Public Water Providers . 22
OCWP Provider Survey 27
Water Supply Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Limitations Analysis 30
Primary Options 30
Demand Management 30
Out-of-Basin Supplies . 30
Reservoir Use 30
Increasing Reliance on Surface Water . 31
Increasing Reliance on Groundwater 31
Expanded Options 31
Expanded Conservation Measures . 31
Artificial Aquifer Recharge 31
Marginal Quality Water Sources 31
Potential Reservoir Development 31
Basin Summaries and Data & Analysis . 45
Basin 17 . 37
Basin 18 . 47
Basin 19 . 57
Basin 20 . 67
Basin 59 . 77
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
West Central Regional Report 1
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
The Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan (OCWP) was originally developed in 1980 and last updated in 1995. With the specific objective of establishing a reliable supply of water for state users throughout at least the next 50 years, the current update represents the most ambitious and intensive water planning effort ever undertaken by the state. The 2012 OCWP Update is guided by two ultimate goals:
Provide safe and dependable water supply 1. for all Oklahomans while improving the economy and protecting the environment.
Provide information so that water 2. providers, policy makers, and water users can make informed decisions concerning the use and management of Oklahoma’s water resources.
In accordance with the goals, the 2012 OCWP Update has been developed under an innovative parallel-path approach: inclusive and dynamic public participation to build sound water policy complemented by detailed technical evaluations.
Also unique to this update are studies conducted according to specific geographic boundaries (watersheds) rather than political boundaries (counties). This new strategy involved subdividing the state into 82 surface water basins for water supply availability analysis (see the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report). Existing watershed boundaries were revised to include a United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at or near the basin outlet (downstream boundary), where practical. To facilitate consideration of regional supply challenges and potential solutions, basins were aggregated into 13 distinct Watershed Planning Regions.
This Watershed Planning Region Report, one of 13 such documents prepared for the 2012 OCWP Update, presents elements of technical studies pertinent to the West Central Region. Each regional report presents information from both a regional and multiple basin perspective, including water supply/demand analysis results, forecasted water supply shortages, potential supply solutions and alternatives, and supporting technical information.
Integral to the development of these reports was the Oklahoma H2O tool, a sophisticated database and geographic information system (GIS) based analysis tool created to compare projected water demands to physical supplies in each of the 82 OCWP basins statewide. Recognizing that water planning is not a static process but rather a dynamic one, this versatile tool can be updated over time as new supply and demand data become available, and can be used to evaluate a variety of “what-if” scenarios at the basin level, such as a change in supply sources, demands, new reservoirs, and various other policy management scenarios.
Primary inputs to the model include demand projections for each decade through 2060, founded on widely-accepted methods and peer review of inputs and results by state and federal agency staff, industry representatives, and
Introduction
The primary factors in the determination of reliable future water supplies are physical supplies, water rights, water quality, and infrastructure. Gaps and depletions occur when demand exceeds supply, and can be attributed to physical supply, water rights, infrastructure, or water quality constraints.
As a key foundation of OCWP technical work, a computer-based analysis tool, “Oklahoma H2O,” was created to compare projected demands with physical supplies for each basin to identify areas of potential water shortages.stakeholder groups for each demand sector. Surface water supply data for each of the 82 basins used 58 years of publicly-available daily streamflow gage data collected by the USGS. Groundwater resources were characterized using previously-developed assessments of groundwater aquifer storage and recharge rates.
Additional information gained during the development of the 2012 OCWP Update is provided in various OCWP supplemental reports. Assessments of statewide physical water availability and potential shortages are documented in the OCWP Physical Water Supply Availability Report. Statewide water demand projection methods and results are presented in the Water Demand Forecast Report. Permitting availability was evaluated based on the OWRB’s administrative protocol and documented in the OCWP Permit Availability Report. All supporting documentation can be found on the OWRB’s website.
Regional Overview
The West Central Watershed Planning Region includes five basins (numbered 17-20 and 59 for reference). The region encompasses 5,262 square miles in western Oklahoma, spanning all of Custer County and parts of Ellis, Dewey, Roger Mills, Blaine, Beckham, Washita, Kiowa, Comanche, Caddo, and Canadian Counties.
The region is in the Central Lowland physiography province. The terrain varies from rough, marked with high sand hills and deep erosion in the north, to lush pasture and rolling river bottoms.
The climate of the region is generally mild with average monthly temperatures varying from 59°F to 64°F. Annual average precipitation ranges from 22 inches in the west to 28 inches in the east. Annual evaporation ranges from 62 to 65 inches per year.
The largest cities in the region include Weatherford (2010 population 10,280), Clinton (8,810), and New Cordell (2,960). The greatest demand is from Crop Irrigation water use.
By 2060, this region is projected to have a total demand of 110,300 acre-feet per year (AFY), an increase of approximately 31,000 AFY (38%) from 2010.2 West Central Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
West Central Regional Summary
The West Central Region accounts for about 4% of the state’s total water demand. The largest demand sector is Crop Irrigation (68% of the regional total).
Water Resources & Limitations
Surface Water
Surface water is used to meet about 16% of the region’s demand. Basins 17, 19, and 59 are projected to have surface water supply shortages in the future. The region is supplied by two major rivers: the Washita River and the Canadian River. Historically, the rivers and creeks in the region have periods of low to no flow in any month of the year due to seasonal and long-term trends in precipitation. Large reservoirs have been built on several rivers to provide public water supply, flood control, and recreation. Significant reservoirs in the West Central Region include Fort Cobb Reservoir (supplies the Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District) and Foss Reservoir (supplies the Foss Master Conservancy District).
Relative to other regions, surface water quality in the region ranges from poor to good. Multiple rivers, creeks, and lakes, including the major rivers, are impaired for Agricultural use (Crop Irrigation demand sector) and Public and Private Water Supply (Municipal and Industrial demand sector) due to high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS), sulfates, and chlorophyll-a. These impairments are scheduled to be addressed through the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) process, but the use of these supplies may be limited in the interim.
Surface water in the Washita River (Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20) is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts. Basin 59, containing the Upper Canadian River, is expected to have available surface water for new permitting to meet local demand through 2060.
Alluvial Groundwater
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet 15% of the demand in the region. The majority of currently permitted alluvial groundwater withdrawals in the region are from the Washita River aquifer and the Canadian River aquifer. If alluvial groundwater continues to supply a similar portion of demand in the future, storage depletions from these aquifers are likely to occur throughout the year, although these projected depletions will be small to moderate relative to the amount of water in storage. The largest storage depletions are projected to occur in the summer.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of alluvial groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Synopsis
The West Central Watershed Planning Region relies primarily on bedrock groundwater, and to a lesser extent, surface water supplies (including reservoirs) and alluvial aquifers.
It is anticipated that water users in the region will continue to rely on these sources to meet future demand.
Surface water supplies will be typically insufficient to meet demand in several basins.
Groundwater storage depletions may lead to higher pumping costs, the need for deeper wells, and potentially, changes to well yields or water quality.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that gaps and storage depletions be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could reduce surface water gaps, alluvial groundwater storage depletions, and bedrock groundwater storage depletions.
Aquifer storage and recovery could be considered to store variable surface water supplies, increase alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage, and reduce adverse effects of localized storage depletions in Basins 18 and 20.
Use of additional groundwater supplies and/or developing new small reservoirs could mitigate gaps without major impacts to groundwater storage.
Current and Projected Regional Water Demand
West Central Region Demand Summary
Current Water Demand:
79,679 acre-feet/year (4% of state total)
Largest Demand Sector:
Crop Irrigation (68% of regional total)
Current Supply Sources:
16% SW
15% Alluvial GW
69% Bedrock GW
Projected Demand (2060):
110,304 acre-feet/year
Growth (2010-2060):
30,625 acre-feet/year (38%)West Central Regional Report 3
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Bedrock Groundwater
Bedrock groundwater is used to meet 69% of the demand in the region. Currently allocated and projected withdrawals are primarily from the Rush Springs aquifer, Ogallala aquifer and non-delineated minor aquifers. The Rush Springs aquifer has about 67 million acre-feet (AF) of groundwater storage in the region. Additionally, the Ogallala aquifer has about 5.7 million AF of groundwater storage in the Region. Bedrock aquifer storage depletions are likely to occur throughout the year, but will be largest in the summer months. These depletions are small relative to the amount of water in storage, but may lead to adverse impacts on pumping costs, yields, and/or water quality.
The availability of permits is not expected to constrain the use of bedrock groundwater supplies to meet local demand through 2060.
Water Supply Limitations
West Central Region
Water Supply Limitations
Surface water limitations were based on physical availability, water supply availability for new permits, and water quality. Groundwater limitations were based on the total size and rate of storage depletions in major aquifers. Groundwater permits are not expected to constrain the use of groundwater through 2060, and insufficient statewide groundwater quality data are available to compare basins based on groundwater quality. Basins with the most significant water supply challenges statewide are indicated by a red box. The remaining basins with surface water gaps or groundwater storage depletions were considered to have potential limitations (yellow). Basins without gaps and storage depletions were considered to have minimal limitations (green). Detailed explanations of each basin’s supplies are provided in individual basin summaries and supporting data and analysis.4 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
regional gaps and storage depletions. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state and identified five potentially viable reservoir sites in the region. These water sources could serve as out-of-basin supplies to provide additional supplies to mitigate the region’s groundwater storage depletions. However, due to the distance from these reservoirs to demand points in each basin, this water supply option may not be cost-effective for many users.
The projected growth in surface water could instead be supplied in part by increased use of groundwater. This may result in minimal increases in projected groundwater storage depletions.
This evaluation was based upon results of physical water supply availability analysis, existing infrastructure, and other basin-specific factors.
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
West Central Region
Water Supply Options
To quantify physical surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions through 2060, use of local supplies was assumed to continue in the current (2010) proportions. Surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies are expected to continue to supply the majority of demand in the region.
Users that rely on surface water, without significant reservoirs, are projected to have physical surface water supply shortages (gaps) in the future. Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions are also projected in the future. Therefore, additional long-term water supplies should be considered. The development of additional bedrock groundwater supplies should be considered a short- term water supply option. Over time, the Rush Springs and Ogallala aquifers may no longer be the most cost-effective source of supply in the basins if water levels decrease.
Water conservation could aid in reducing projected gaps and groundwater storage depletions or delaying the need for additional infrastructure. Moderately expanded conservation activities, primarily from increased irrigation efficiency and increased conservation by public water suppliers, could reduce gaps and storage depletions, and in Basins 20 and 59 could eliminate bedrock groundwater storage depletions. Further reductions could occur from substantially expanded conservation activities. These measures would require a shift from crops with high water demand (e.g., corn for grain and forage crops) to low water demand crops such as sorghum for grain or wheat for grain, along with increased efficiency and increased public water supplier conservation. Due to extended dry periods and predominant use of groundwater supplies, temporary drought management measures alone will likely be an ineffective water supply option.
New small reservoirs (50 AF or less of storage) could enhance the dependability of surface water supplies and could decrease gaps. Basin 59 has unallocated streamflow and could develop larger reservoirs to decrease local and potentially West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 5
6 West Central Regional Report
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply
Physical Water Availability
Surface Water Resources
Surface water has historically satisfied about 16% of the demand in the West Central Region. The region’s major streams include the Upper Washita and the Upper Canadian. Many streams in this region have historically experienced periods of very low flows, although periodic flooding events can also occur.
The Canadian River, located in the northern area of the region, consists of a long mainstem beginning in Texas and stretching across much of the state of Oklahoma, with 160 miles of the mainstem located in Basin 59. There are no major tributaries to the Canadian River located in the region.
The headwaters of the Washita River are located in Texas with the mainstem flowing through the southern and eastern portion of the West Central Region; 530 miles of the Washita River mainstem are located in Oklahoma with 250 miles in the West Central Region. Major tributaries in the West Central region include Cobb Creek (20 miles).
In the West Central Region, streamflow is generally low. Existing reservoirs in the region increase the dependability of surface water supply for many public water systems and other users. Reservoirs in the region with water supply yield include: Fort Cobb Reservoir, built in 1959 on Cobb Creek by the Bureau of Reclamation; Foss Reservoir, built in 1961 on the Upper Washita by the Bureau of Reclamation; and Clinton Lake, built on the Washita River by the City of Clinton in 1931. Other reservoirs in the region include Crowder Lake, Dead Warrior Lake, and Sportsman Lake. There are many other small Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and municipal and privately owned lakes in the region that provide water for public water supply, agricultural water supply, flood control and recreation.
As important sources of surface water in Oklahoma, reservoirs and lakes help provide dependable water supply storage, especially when streams and rivers experience periods of low seasonal flow or drought.
Surface water sources supply about 16% of the demand in the West Central Region. While the region’s average physical surface water supply exceeds projected surface water demand in the region, gaps can occur due to seasonal, long-term hydrologic (drought), or localized variability in surface water flows.
Surface Water Flows (1950-2007)
West Central Region
Reservoirs
West Central Region
Water Supply
Irrigation
Water Quality
Permitted
Withdrawals
Remaining Water Supply Yield to be Permitted
Reservoir Name
Primary Basin Number
Reservoir Owner/Operator
Year Built
Purpose1
Normal Pool Storage
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
Storage
Yield
AF
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AF
AFY
AFY
AFY
Clinton
19
City of Clinton
1931
WS, R
3,980
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Crowder
18
State of Oklahoma
1959
FC, R
2,094
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Dead Warrior
20
City of Cheyenne
1959
FC, R
977
---
---
0
0
0
0
0
No Known Yield
Fort Cobb
18
Bureau of Reclamation
1959
FC, WS, FW, R
80,010
78,350
18,000
0
0
0
0
18,000
0
Foss
20
Bureau of Reclamation
1961
IR, FC, WS, FW, R
256,220
165,480
18,000
0
0
0
0
17,634
366
1 The “Purposes” represent the use(s), as authorized by the funding entity or dam owner(s), for the reservoir storage when constructed.
WS = Water Supply, R = Recreation, HP= Hydroelectric Power, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, WQ = Water Quality, FW = Fish & Wildlife, LF = Low Flow Regulation, N = Navigation
No known information is annotated as “---”West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 7
Significant reservoirs in the West Central Region include Crowder, Dead Warrior, Fort Cobb, Foss, and Clinton. Reservoirs may serve multiple purposes, such as water supply, irrigation, recreation, hydropower generation, and flood control. Reservoirs designed for multiple purposes typically possess a specific volume of water storage assigned for each purpose.
Surface Water Resources
West Central Region8 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Estimated Annual Streamflow in 2060
West Central Region
Streamflow Statistic
Basins
17
18
19
20
59
AFY
Average Annual Flow
309,900
23,500
259,000
121,400
174,300
Minimum Annual Flow
40,200
0
43,800
19,700
4,400
Annual streamflow in 2060 was estimated using historical gaged flow and projections of increased surface water use from 2010 to 2060.
Water Supply Availability Analysis
For OCWP physical water supply availability analysis, water supplies were divided into three categories: surface water, alluvial aquifers, and bedrock aquifers. Physically available surface water refers to water currently in streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The range of historical surface water availability, including droughts, is well-represented in the Oklahoma H2O tool by 58 years of monthly streamflow data (1950 to 2007) recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Therefore, measured streamflow, which reflects current natural and human created conditions (runoff, diversions and use of water, and impoundments and reservoirs), is used to represent the physical water that may be available to meet projected demand.
The estimated average and minimum annual streamflow in 2060 were determined based on historic surface water flow measurements and projected baseline 2060 demand (see Water Demand section). The amount of streamflow in 2060 may vary from basin-level values, due to local variations in demands and local availability of supply sources. The estimated surface water supplies include changes in historical streamflow due to increased upstream demand, return flows, and increases in out-of-basin supplies from existing infrastructure. Permitting, water quality, infrastructure, non-consumptive demand, and potential climate change implications are considered in separate OCWP analyses. Past reservoir operations are reflected and accounted for in the measured historical streamflow downstream of a reservoir. For this analysis, streamflow was adjusted to reflect interstate compact provisions in accordance with existing administrative protocol.
The amount of water a reservoir can provide from storage is referred to as its yield. The yield is considered the maximum amount of water a reservoir can dependably supply during critical drought periods. OCWP physical availability analyses considered the unused yield of existing reservoirs. Future potential reservoir storage was considered as a water supply option.
Groundwater supplies are quantified by the amount of water that the aquifer holds (“stored” water) and the rate of aquifer recharge. In Oklahoma, recharge to aquifers is generally from precipitation that falls on the aquifer and percolates to the water table. In some cases, where the altitude of the water table is below the altitude of the stream-water surface, surface water can seep into the aquifer.
For this analysis, alluvial aquifers are defined as aquifers comprised of river alluvium and terrace deposits, occurring along rivers and streams and consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt, and clay. Alluvial aquifers are generally thinner (less than 200 feet thick) than bedrock aquifers, feature shallow water tables, and are exposed at the land surface, where precipitation can readily percolate to the water table. Alluvial aquifers are considered to be more hydrologically connected with streams than are bedrock aquifers and are therefore treated separately.
Bedrock aquifers consist of consolidated (solid) or partially consolidated rocks, such as sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and gypsum. Most bedrock aquifers in Oklahoma are exposed at land surface, either entirely or in part. Recharge from precipitation is limited in areas where bedrock aquifers are not exposed.
For both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, this analysis was used to predict potential groundwater depletions based on the difference between the groundwater demand and recharge rate. While potential storage depletions do not affect the permit availability of water, it is important to understand the extent of these depletions.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 9
Wells in this formation range from 200 gpm to 500 gpm. The water is hard to very hard and of a generally calcium magnesium bicarbonate type, and TDS values are usually less than 1,000 mg/L. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 17, 19, 20, and 59.
The Canadian River aquifer consists of clay and silt downgrading to fine- to coarse-grained sand with lenses of basal gravel. Formation thicknesses range from 20 to 40 feet in the alluvium with a maximum of 50 feet in the terrace deposits. Yields in the alluvium range between 100 and 400 gpm and between 50 and 100 gpm in the terrace. The water is a very hard calcium bicarbonate type with TDS concentrations of approximately 1,000 mg/L. However, the water is generally suitable for most municipal and industrial uses. The aquifer underlies a small portion of Basins 19, 20, and 59.
Minor bedrock aquifers in the region include the Hennessey-Garber, Southwestern Oklahoma, and Western Oklahoma aquifers. Minor aquifers may have a significant amount of water in storage and high recharge rates, but generally low yields of less than 50 gpm. Groundwater from minor aquifers is an important source of water for domestic and stock water use for individuals in outlying areas
Groundwater Resources
Four major bedrock aquifers, the Elk City, Ogallala, Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, and Rush Springs, underlie the West Central Watershed Planning Region, along with two major alluvial aquifers, the Canadian River and Washita River.
The Elk City aquifer is comprised of fine-grained, friable sandstone with a maximum thickness of about 185 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 300 gallons per minute (gpm) of water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial purposes.
The Ogallala aquifer, the most prolific aquifer in the state, underlies only the western portion of Basins 20 and 59. The Ogallala consists predominantly of semi-consolidated sediment layers. The depth to water ranges from less than 10 feet to more than 300 feet below the land surface and the saturated thickness ranges from nearly zero to almost 430 feet. The Ogallala commonly yields 500 to 1,000 gpm and can yield up to 2,000 gpm in thick, highly permeable areas. Due primarily to significant crop irrigation use, groundwater is pumped out of the aquifer at rates significantly exceeding recharge, causing declining water levels throughout much of the aquifer. However, in areas of Roger Mills County, water levels have increased. The equal proportionate share has been set at 1.4 AF/acre for the portion of the aquifer underling Ellis and Dewey Counties, but a study has not been completed for the portion of the Ogallala underlying Roger Mills. Water quality of the aquifer is generally very good. In local areas, water quality has been impaired by high concentrations of nitrate.
The Arbuckle-Timbered Hills aquifer underlies a small portion of Basin 19. Availability of groundwater in the Limestone Hills is erratic due to faulting and folding. Most wells are 500 feet
Withdrawing groundwater in quantities exceeding the amount of recharge to the aquifer may result in reduced aquifer storage. Therefore, both storage and recharge were considered in determining groundwater availability.or deeper and wells and springs yield as much as 100 gpm. Water from the Limestone Hills area is generally very hard and fluoride concentrations typically exceed the drinking water standard, limiting use for public supply.
The Rush Springs aquifer is a fine-grained sandstone aquifer with some shale, dolomite, and gypsum. Thickness of the aquifer ranges from 200 to 300 feet. Wells commonly yield 25 to 400 gpm. The water tends to be very hard, requiring water softening to address aesthetic issues for public water supply use. In some areas nitrate and sulfate concentrations exceed drinking water standards, limiting its use for drinking water. The aquifer underlies portions of Basins 17, 18, 19, and 59.
The Washita River aquifer consists of silt and clays grading into fine to course sand. The formation deposits average 70 feet in thickness. not served by rural water systems, but may not have sufficient yield for high-volume users.
Groundwater Resources
West Central Region
Aquifer
Portion of Region Overlaying Aquifer
Recharge
Rate
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Region
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
Inch/Yr
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills
Bedrock
Major
1%
0.3-0.6
3,300
79,000
temporary 2.0
34,600
Canadian River
Alluvial
Major
15%
2.0
28,000
1,829,000
temporary 2.0
954,000
Elk City
Bedrock
Major
2%
2.8
8,600
809,000
1.0
69,600
Ogallala
Bedrock
Major
14%
0.9
65,500
5,795,000
1.4 to temporary 2.0
846,000
Rush Springs
Bedrock
Major
32%
0-1.8
348,100
67,329,000
temporary 2.0
1,729,800
Washita River
Alluvial
Major
8%
2.7-3.2
66,300
2,982,000
1.5-2.0
453,200
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
7%
2.25
0
654,000
temporary 2.0
483,100
Western Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
1%
300
NA
temporary 2.0
50,200
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
7,100
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
50,100
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.
Areas without delineated aquifers may have groundwater present. However, specific quantities, yields, and water quality in these areas are currently unknown.
Permits to withdraw groundwater from aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has not been set are “temporary” permits that allocate 2 AFY/acre. The temporary permit allocation is not based on storage, discharge or recharge amounts, but on a legislative (statute) estimate of maximum needs of most landowners to ensure sufficient availability of groundwater in advance of completed and approved aquifer studies. As a result, the estimated amount of Groundwater Available for New Permits may exceed the estimated aquifer storage amount. For aquifers (groundwater basins) where the maximum annual yield has been determined (with initial storage volumes estimated), updated estimates of amounts in storage were calculated based on actual reported use of groundwater instead of simulated usage from all lands.10 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Major bedrock aquifers in the West Central Region include the Arbuckle-Timbered Hills, Elk City, Ogallala and Rush Springs. Major alluvial aquifers in the region include the Canadian River and Washita River. Major bedrock aquifers are defined as those that have an average water well yield of at least 50 gpm; major alluvial aquifers are those that yield, on average, at least 150 gpm.
Groundwater Resources
West Central RegionWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 11
Water Use Permitting in Oklahoma
Oklahoma stream water laws are based on riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. Riparian rights to a reasonable use of water, in addition to domestic use, are not subject to permitting or oversight by the OWRB. An appropriative right to stream water is based on the prior appropriation doctrine, which is often described as “first in time, first in right.” If a water shortage occurs, the diverter with the older appropriative water right will have first right among other appropriative right holders to divert the available water up to the authorized amount.
The permit availability of surface water is based on the average annual flow in the basin, the amount of water that flows past the proposed diversion point, and existing water uses upstream and downstream in the basin. The permit availability of surface water at the outlet of each basin in the region was estimated through OCWP technical analyses. The current allocated use for each basin is also noted to give an indication of the portion of the average annual streamflow used by existing water right holders. A site-specific analysis is conducted before issuing a permit.
Groundwater permit availability is generally based on the amount of land owned or leased that overlies a specific aquifer (groundwater basin). State law provides for the OWRB to conduct hydrologic investigations of groundwater basins and to determine amounts of water that may be withdrawn. After a hydrologic investigation has been conducted on a groundwater basin, the OWRB determines the maximum annual yield of the basin. Based on the “equal proportionate share”—defined as the portion of the maximum annual yield of water from a groundwater basin that is allocated to each acre of land overlying the basin—regular permits are issued to holders of existing temporary permits and to new permit applicants. Equal proportionate shares have yet to be determined on many aquifers in the state. For those aquifers, “temporary” permits are granted to users allocating two acre-feet of water per acre of land per year. When the equal proportionate share and maximum annual yield are approved by the OWRB, all temporary permits overlying the studied basin are converted to regular permits at the new approved allocation rate. As with stream water, a groundwater permit grants only the right to withdraw water; it does not ensure yield.
Permit Availability
For the OCWP water availability analysis, “permit availability” pertains to the amount of water that could be made available for withdrawals under permits issued in accordance with Oklahoma water law.
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basin 59. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the West Central Region in 2060. For groundwater, each aquifer’s equal proportionate share (EPS) determines the amount of water available for permits. Equal proportionate shares in the West Central Region range from 1 AFY per acre to 2 AFY per acre. Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the West Central Region.
If water authorized by a stream water right is not put to beneficial use within the specified time, the OWRB may reduce or cancel the unused amount and return the water to the public domain for appropriation to others.
Groundwater Permit Availability
West Central Region
Projections indicate that there will be groundwater available for new permits through 2060 in all basins in the West Central Region.
Surface Water Permit Availability
West Central Region
Projections indicate that there will be surface water available for new permits through 2060 in Basin 59. There is no surface water available for new permits in Basins 17, 18, 19, and 20 in the West Central Region. 12 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality
Water quality of the West Central Watershed Planning Region is defined by two major river systems, the Canadian and Washita Rivers, and numerous local water supply/flood control reservoirs. The majority of the region is contained within the Central Great Plains (CGP) ecoregion, with some Southwestern Tablelands (SWT) influence in the far northwestern corner. It is bordered by the Cross Timbers ecoregion and other CGP ecoregions, but their influence is minimal and will not be addressed.
The region is dominated ecologically by the Rolling Red Hills ecoregion. The area has steep hilly relief and breaks, with intermixed gypsum karst features. It is dominated by rangeland with predominately mixed/short grass prairies, and lowland wooded areas. It extends from the western border through over three quarters of the region��s geographical area and is drained by the Canadian and Washita Rivers, represented by stations at McClure and Cordell. Streams throughout the area are mostly sand or sand/silt bottom with low/moderate gradients and incised banks. Flood control/water supply lakes include Foss, Clinton, and Vanderwork. Salinity is high with mean conductivity values ranging from 1,860 (McClure) to 2,250 uS (Taloga). The Canadian has similar mean concentrations for chloride (500 ppm) and sulfate (490 ppm). However, the Washita is sulfate-dominated, with means ranging from 842 (McClure) to near 1,000 ppm (Cordell), while chloride averages around 65 ppm. Reservoir salinity is variable. Conductivity at Vanderwork (1,700 uS) and Foss (2,100 uS) are comparable to the Washita. However, conductivity of 525 uS at Clinton is low. In the Canadian drainage, total nitrogen and phosphorus mean concentrations are low at values of 0.90 and 0.09 ppm. However, the Washita River is eutrophic and higher, with mean total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations range from 1.61 and 0.16 (McClure) to 2.00 and 0.34 ppm (Cordell). Lakes are phosphorus limited and eutrophic (Foss) to hyper-eutrophic (Clinton, Vanderwork). With a mean turbidity of 15 NTU, water clarity is very good in the Canadian River. Conversely, clarity is poor in the Washita drainage with mean turbidities of 56 (McClure) and 61 NTU (Cordell). Lake clarity is poor to good, with average Secchi depths of 23 cm (Clinton) to near 100 cm (Vanderwork). Ecological diversity is low throughout both drainages due to salinity, habitat degradation, and sedimentation.
The remaining quarter of the region is characterized mostly by the Cross Timbers Transition (CTT), and to a lesser extent, the Pleistocene Sand Dunes. The CTT is a hybrid mix of rough plains covered by prairie grasses and oak/elm and cedar forests, with cropland/rangeland as major land uses. Streams are typically rockier. Along the northern Canadian River, the Pleistocene Sand Dunes have more permeable sandy soils, interlaced with springs and inter-dune wetlands, with stream substrates to the Rolling Red Hills. The area is characterized by the Washita
The West Central Planning Region is dominated by the ecoregions of the Central Great Plains with some Southwestern Tablelands influence in the northwest corner. Surface water quality is generally poor to good depending on drainage and location.
Ecoregions
West Central Region
Lake Trophic Status
A lake’s trophic state, essentially a measure of its biological productivity, is a major determinant of water quality.
Oligotrophic: Low primary productivity and/or low nutrient levels.
Mesotrophic: Moderate primary productivity with moderate nutrient levels.
Eutrophic: High primary productivity and nutrient rich.
Hypereutrophic: Excessive primary productivity and excessive nutrients.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 13
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) are the cornerstone of the state’s water quality management programs. The OWQS are a set of rules promulgated under the federal Clean Water Act and state statutes, designed to maintain and protect the quality of the state’s waters. The OWQS designate beneficial uses for streams, lakes and other bodies of surface water, and for groundwater that has a mean concentration of Total Dissolved Solids of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less. Beneficial uses are the activities for which a waterbody can be used based on physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as geographic setting, scenic quality, and economic considerations. Beneficial uses include categories such as Fish and Wildlife Propagation, Public and Private Water Supply, Primary (or Secondary) Body Contact Recreation, Agriculture, and Aesthetics.
The OWQS also contain standards for maintaining and protecting these uses. The purpose of the OWQS is to promote and protect as many beneficial uses as are attainable and to assure that degradation of existing quality of waters of the state does not occur.
The OWQS are applicable to all activities which may affect the water quality of waters of the state, and are to be utilized by all state environmental agencies in implementing their programs to protect water quality. Some examples of these implementation programs are: permits for point source (e.g. municipal and industrial) discharges into waters of the state; authorizations for waste disposal from concentrated animal feeding operations; regulation of runoff from nonpoint sources; and corrective actions to clean up polluted waters.
and Canadian drainages, and water supply/flood control lakes, including Fort Cobb, American Horse, and Crowder Lakes. Salinity decreases in a trend that will continue east. River mean conductivity is 1,380 (Canadian) to 1,675 uS (Washita). Lake conductivity of around 225 (American Horse) to 500 uS (Fort Cobb) is analogous to the Cross Timbers. Crowder remains high at around 900 uS. Total nitrogen (1.24ppm) and phosphorus (0.22) mean concentrations increase along the Canadian. On the Washita, total nitrogen decreases to 1.62 ppm, while total phosphorus remains stable at 0.36 ppm. Both rivers are hyper-eutrophic. Likewise, Fort Cobb and Crowder have high nutrient concentrations, and are eutrophic to hyper-eutrophic. Unique for the CGP, American Horse is oligotrophic, with low nutrient concentrations of 1.00 (nitrogen) and 0.05 ppm (phosphorus), Water clarity is fair to poor with turbidity means of 40 (Canadian) and 75 NTU (Washita). Lake clarity is average to good, with mean Secchi depths of 58 (Fort Cobb) to 118 cm (American Horse). Ecological diversity increases due to lower salinity but still impacted by habitat degradation and sedimentation.
Finally, the Cimarron/Canadian Breaks ecoregion of the SWT extends into the far northwestern corner. It is characteristically rugged, with a variety of hills, buttes, canyons, and escarpments, underlain by sandstone/siltstone. Numerous springs support a variety of ecosystems in lowland areas. Lake Vincent has moderately high salinity (conductivity = 825 uS). Vincent is mesotrophic, with comparatively low nitrogen (0.60 ppm) and phosphorus (0.02 ppm). Water clarity is good with a Secchi
Water Quality Standards Implementation
West Central Region
The Oklahoma Conservation Commission has begun a watershed implementation project on Fort Cobb Lake to address the sources of the lake’s impairments, including sediment, nutrient and bacterial pathogens. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality has completed TMDL studies on Bear Creek, Commission Creek, Deer Creek, Willow Creek, and Canadian River.14 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Impairments
West Central Region
Regional water quality impairments are based on the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report. Excessive levels
of nutrients and turbidity are producing impacts. Groundwater from the Rush Springs aquifer has nitrate and sulfate
concentrations that exceed drinking water standards in some areas, limiting its use for drinking water.
Water Quality Impairments
A waterbody is considered to be impaired
when its quality does not meet the
standards prescribed for its beneficial
uses. For example, impairment of the
Public and Private Water Supply beneficial
use means the use of the waterbody
as a drinking water supply is hindered.
Impairment of the Agricultural use means
the use of the waterbody for livestock
watering, irrigation or other agricultural
uses is hindered. Impairments can exist
for other uses such as Fish and Wildlife
Propagation or Recreation.
The Beneficial Use Monitoring Program
(BUMP), established in 1998 to
document and quantify impairments of
assigned beneficial uses of the state’s
lakes and streams, provides information
for supporting and updating the
OWQS and prioritizing pollution control
programs. A set of rules known as “use
support assessment protocols” is also
used to determine whether beneficial uses
of waterbodies are being supported.
In an individual waterbody, after
impairments have been identified, a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study is
conducted to establish the sources of
impairments—whether from point sources
(discharges) or non-point sources (runoff).
The study will then determine the amount
of reduction necessary to meet the
applicable water quality standards in that
waterbody and allocate loads among the
various contributors of pollution.
For more detailed review of the state’s
water quality conditions, see the most
recent versions of the OWRB’s BUMP
Report, and the Oklahoma Integrated
Water Quality Assessment Report, a
comprehensive assessment of water
quality in Oklahoma’s streams and lakes
required by the federal Clean Water Act
and developed by the ODEQ.
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan West Central Regional Report 15
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use
for Public/Private Water Supply
West Central Region
Surface Waters with Designated Beneficial Use
for Agriculture
West Central Region
Depth of 68 cm and can be excellent in streams.
Ecological diversity is fair but remains impacted
by salinity.
Although a statewide groundwater water quality
program does not exist in Oklahoma, various
aquifer studies have been completed, and data are
available from municipal authorities and other
sources.
The West Central region is underlain by several
major and minor bedrock and alluvial aquifers.
In most western Oklahoma alluvial aquifers,
water quality is good, and except for hardness
and localized nitrate problems, the water is
appropriate for domestic, irrigation, industrial
and municipal use.
Major bedrock aquifers in the region include the
Ogallala, Elk City, Rush Springs Sandstone and
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group. The Ogallala
aquifer extends into the northwestern portion
of the region. Water quality of the aquifer is
generally very good and can be used for most
purposes. The Elk City aquifer lies along a
portion of the southern border of the region and
is comprised of fine-grained and very friable
sandstone. Water is generally considered suitable
for most purposes. The Rush Springs Sandstone
extends into the east and central portion of the
region. Although comparatively hard, most of the
water derived from it is suitable for most uses,
with total dissolved solids (TDS) values generally
less than 500 ppm. However, chloride, sulfate,
and nitrate concentrations exceed drinking
water standards in some areas. Lastly, the
Arbuckle-Timbered Hills Group extends into the
southern tip of the region and is characteristic
of the Limestone Hills area. It sometimes
contains hydrogen sulfide gas and is very hard,
calcium bicarbonate water, with total dissolved
solids ranging from 195 to 940 ppm. Where
permeability is high, water in the Arbuckle-
Timbered Hills Group may be suitable for
industrial use. Because fluoride concentrations
generally range from 1.6 to 17 ppm and exceed
drinking water standards, public water supply
use is limited.
16 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Surface Water Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) provide protection for surface waters in many ways.
Appendix B Areas are designated in the OWQS as containing waters of recreational and/or ecological significance. Discharges to waterbodies may be limited in these areas.
Source Water Protection Areas are derived from the state’s Source Water Protection Program, which analyzes existing and potential threats to the quality of public drinking water in Oklahoma.
High Quality Waters designation in the OWQS refers to waters that exhibit water quality exceeding levels necessary to support the propagation of fishes, shellfishes, wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Sensitive Water Supplies (SWS) designation applies to public and private water supplies possessing conditions making them more susceptible to pollution events, thus requiring additional protection. This designation restricts point source discharges in the watershed and institutes a 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) chlorophyll-a criterion to protect against taste and odor problems and reduce water treatment costs.
Outstanding Resource Waters are those constituting outstanding resources or of exceptional recreational and/or ecological significance. This designation prohibits any new point source discharges or additional load or increased concentration of specified pollutants.
Waters designated as Scenic Rivers in Appendix A of the OWQS are protected through restrictions on point source discharges in the watershed. A 0.037 mg/L total phosphorus criterion is applied to all Scenic Rivers in Oklahoma.
Nutrient Limited Watersheds are those containing a waterbody with a designated beneficial use that is adversely affected by excess nutrients.
Surface Water Protection Areas
West Central Region
Special OWQS provisions are in place to protect surface waters. Because Lake Thomas is a public water supply reservoir and has a relatively small watershed, it could potentially benefit from a SWS designation. This designation could provide protection from new or increased loading from point sources in the watershed. This additional protection would also provide limits for algae (chlorophyll a) that can cause taste and odor problems and increased treatment costs.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 17
Groundwater Protection
The Oklahoma Water Quality Standards (OWQS) sets the criteria for protection of groundwater quality as follows: “If the concentration found in the test sample exceeds [detection limit], or if other substances in the groundwater are found in concentrations greater than those found in background conditions, that groundwater shall be deemed to be polluted and corrective action may be required.”
Wellhead Protection Areas are established by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to improve drinking water quality through the protection of groundwater supplies. The primary goal is to minimize the risk of pollution by limiting potential pollution-related activities on land around public water supplies.
Oil and Gas Production Special Requirement Areas, enacted to protect groundwater and/or surface water, can consist of specially lined drilling mud pits (to prevent leaks and spills) or tanks whose contents are removed upon completion of drilling activities; well set-back distances from streams and lakes; restrictions on fluids and chemicals; or other related protective measures.
Nutrient-Vulnerable Groundwater is a designation given to certain hydrogeologic basins that are designated by the OWRB as having high or very high vulnerability to contamination from surface sources of pollution. This designation can impact land application of manure for regulated agriculture facilities.
Class 1 Special Source Groundwaters are those of exceptional quality and particularly vulnerable to contamination. This classification includes groundwaters located underneath watersheds of Scenic Rivers, within OWQS Appendix B areas, or underneath wellhead or source water protection areas.
Appendix H Limited Areas of Groundwater are localized areas where quality is unsuitable for default beneficial uses due to natural conditions or irreversible human-induced pollution.
NOTE: Although the State of Oklahoma has a mature and successful surface water quality monitoring program, no comprehensive approach or plan to monitor the quality of the state’s groundwater resources has been developed.
Groundwater Protection Areas
West Central Region
Various types of protection are in place to prevent degradation of groundwater and levels of vulnerability. The Elk City aquifer has been identified by the OWRB as highly vulnerable, while the Canadian River and Washita River alluvial aquifers have been identified as very highly vulnerable.18 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Quality Trends Study
As part of the 2012 OCWP Update, OWRB monitoring staff compiled more than ten years of Beneficial Use Monitoring Program (BUMP) data and other resources to initiate an ongoing statewide comprehensive analysis of surface water quality trends. Five parameters were selected for OCWP watershed planning region analysis—chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity.
Reservoir Trends: Water quality trends for reservoirs were analyzed for chlorophyll-a, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty-five (65) reservoirs across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations continue to increase at a number • of lakes. The proportions of lakes exhibiting a significant upward trend were 42% for chlorophyll-a, 45% for total nitrogen, and 12% for total phosphorus.
Likewise, conductivity and turbidity have trended upward over time. Nearly • 28% of lakes show a significant upward trend in turbidity, while nearly 45% demonstrate a significant upward trend for conductivity.
Stream Trends: Water quality trends for streams were analyzed for conductivity, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity at sixty (60) river stations across the state. Data sets were of various lengths, depending on the station’s period of record, but generally, data were divided into historical and recent datasets, and analyzed separately and as a whole. The direction and magnitude of trends varies throughout the state and within regions. However, when considered statewide, the final trend analysis revealed several notable details.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus are very different when comparing period of • record to more recent data. When considering the entire period of record, approximately 80% of stations showed a downward trend in nutrients. However, if only the most recent data (approximately 10 years) are considered, the percentage of stations with a downward trend decreases to 13% for nitrogen and 30% for phosphorus. The drop is accounted for in stations with either significant upward trends or no detectable trend.
Likewise, general turbidity trends have changed over time. Over the entire • period of record, approximately 60% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 10%.
Similarly, general conductivity trends have changed over time, albeit less • dramatically. Over the entire period of record, approximately 45% of stations demonstrated a significant upward trend. However, more recently, that proportion has dropped to less than 30%.
Typical Impact of Trends Study Parameters
Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algae growth. When algae growth increases, there is an increased likelihood of taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as aesthetic issues.
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass electrical current. In water, conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids, such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium, iron, and aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Conductivity in streams and rivers is heavily dependent upon regional geology and discharges. High specific conductance indicates high concentrations of dissolved solids, which can affect the suitability of water for domestic, industrial, agricultural and other uses. At higher conductivity levels, drinking water may have an unpleasant taste or odor or may even cause gastrointestinal distress. High concentration may also cause deterioration of plumbing fixtures and appliances. Relatively expensive water treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis, are required to remove excessive dissolved solids from water. Concerning agriculture, most crops cannot survive if the salinity of the water is too high.
Total Nitrogen is a measure of all dissolved and suspended nitrogen in a water sample. It includes kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia + organic), nitrate and nitrite nitrogen. It is naturally abundant in the environment and is a key element necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen from polluting sources can lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia and declines in wildlife and its habitat.
Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for growth of plants and animals. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus lead to significant water quality problems, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and declines in wildlife and its habitat. Increases in total phosphorus can lead to excessive growth of algae, which can increase taste and odor problems in drinking water as well as increased costs for treatment.
Turbidity refers to the clarity of water. The greater the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity. Increases in turbidity can increase treatment costs and have negative effects on aquatic communities by reducing light penetration.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 19
Stream Water Quality Trends
West Central Region
Site
Canadian River near Bridgeport
Washita River near Anadarko
Washita River near McClure
Parameter
All Data Trend (1948-1993, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1964-1993, 1999-2009)1
Recent Trend (1999-2009)
All Data Trend (1969-1993, 1998-2009)1
Recent Trend (1998-2009)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
1Date ranges for analyzed data represent the earliest site visit date and may not be representative of all parameters.
Notable concerns in the West Central Region are:
Significant upward trend for recent nutrient data throughout the region•
Significant upward trend for period of record turbidity throughout the region•
Reservoir Water Quality Trends
West Central Region
Site
Clinton Lake
Fort Cobb Lake
Foss Lake
Parameter
(1995-2004)
(1995-2009)
(1996-2005)
Chlorophyll-a (mg/m3)
Conductivity (us/cm)
NT
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
NT
NT
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
NT
NT
Turbidity (NTU)
NT
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend NT = No significant trend detectedTrend magnitude and statistical confidence levels vary for each site. Site-specific information can be obtained from the OWRB Water Quality Division.
Notable concerns in the West Central Region are:
Significant upward trend for chlorophyll-a on Clinton and Foss reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for conductivity on Clinton and Fort Cobb reservoirs•
Significant upward trend for total nitrogen on Clinton Reservoir• 20 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
The West Central Region’s water needs
account for about 4% of the total statewide
demand. Regional demand will increase
by 38% (30,600 AFY) from 2010 to 2060.
The majority of the demand and growth in
demand over this period will be from the Crop
Irrigation sector, with significant growth also
coming from the Oil and Gas sector.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to remain
the largest demand sector in the region,
accounting for 62% of the 2060 demand.
Currently, 5% of the demand from this
sector is supplied by surface water, 14% by
alluvial groundwater, and 81% by bedrock
groundwater. Predominant irrigated crops
in the West Central Region include pasture
grasses and wheat.
Municipal and Industrial demand is projected
to account for approximately 11% of the total
2060 demand. Currently, 52% of the demand
from this sector is supplied by surface water,
5% by alluvial groundwater, and 43% by
bedrock groundwater.
Oil and Gas demand is projected to account
for approximately 11% of the 2060 demand.
Currently, 59% of the demand from this
sector is supplied by surface water, 13% by
alluvial groundwater, and 29% by bedrock
groundwater.
Thermoelectric Power demand is projected
to account for approximately 8% of the
2060 demand. The Public Service Company
of Oklahoma’s Southwestern plant and the
Western Farmers Electric Cooperative’s
Anadarko plant are large users of water
for thermoelectric power generation in the
region. Currently, 61% of the demand from
this sector is supplied by surface water, 37%
by alluvial groundwater, and 2% by bedrock
groundwater.
Livestock demand is projected to account for
6% of the 2060 demand. Currently, 6% of the
demand from this sector is supplied by surface
water, 19% by alluvial groundwater, and 75%
by bedrock groundwater. Livestock use in the
region is predominantly for cattle for cow-calf
production, followed distantly by hogs.
Self-Supplied Residential demand is
projected to account for 2% of the 2060
demand. Currently, 33% of the demand
from this sector is supplied by alluvial
groundwater and 67% by bedrock
groundwater.
There is minimal Self-Supplied Industrial
demand in the region on a basin scale.
Crop Irrigation demand is expected to remain the largest demand sector in the region,
accounting for 68% of the total regional demand in 2060.
Total 2060 Water Demand by Sector and Basin
(Percent of Total Basin Demand)
West Central Region
West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 21
Supply Sources Used to Meet
Current Demand (2010)
West Central Region
The West Central Region’s water needs account for about 4% of the total statewide demand. Regional demand will increase by 38% (30,625 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation sector, with significant growth also coming from the Oil & Gas sector.
Total Water Demand
by Sector
West Central Region
Water Demand
Water demand refers to the amount of water required to meet the needs of people, communities, industry, agriculture, and other users. Growth in water demand frequently corresponds to growth in population, agriculture, industry, or related economic activity. Demands have been projected from 2010 to 2060 in ten-year increments for seven distinct consumptive water demand sectors.
Water Demand Sectors
nThermoelectric Power: Thermoelectric power producing plants, using both self-supplied water and municipal-supplied water, are included in the thermoelectric power sector.
nSelf-Supplied Residential: Households on private wells that are not connected to a public water supply system are included in the SSR sector.
nSelf-Supplied Industrial: Demands from large industries that do not directly depend upon a public water supply system are included in the SSI sector. Available water use data and employment counts were included in this sector.
nOil and Gas: Oil and gas drilling and exploration activities, excluding water used at oil and gas refineries (typically categorized as self supplied industrial users), are included in the oil and gas sector.
nMunicipal and Industrial: These demands represent water that is provided by public water systems to homes, businesses, and industries throughout Oklahoma, excluding water supplied to thermoelectric power plants.
nLivestock: Livestock demands were evaluated by livestock group (beef, poultry, etc.) based on the 2007 Agriculture Census.
nCrop Irrigation: Water demands for crop irrigation were estimated using the 2007 Agriculture Census data for irrigated acres by crop type and county. Crop irrigation requirements were obtained primarily from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Irrigation Guide Reports.
OCWP demands were not projected for non-consumptive or instream water uses, such as hydroelectric power generation, fish and wildlife, recreation and instream flow maintenance. Projections, which were augmented through user/stakeholder input, are based on standard methods using data specific to each sector and OCWP planning basin.
Projections were initially developed for each county in the state, and then allocated to each of the 82 basins. To provide regional context, demands were aggregated by Watershed Planning Region. Water shortages were calculated at the basin level to more accurately determine areas where shortages may occur. Therefore, gaps, depletions, and options are presented in detail in the basin summaries and subsequent sections. Future demand projections were developed independent of available supply, water quality, or infrastructure considerations. The impacts of climate change, increased water use efficiency, conservation, and non-consumptive uses, such as hydropower, are presented in supplemental OCWP reports.
Present and future demands were applied to supply source categories to facilitate an evaluation of potential surface water gaps and alluvial and bedrock aquifer storage depletions at the basin level. For this baseline analysis, the proportion of each supply source used to meet future demands for each sector was held constant at the proportion established through current, active water use permit allocations. For example, if the crop irrigation sector in a basin currently uses 80% bedrock groundwater, then 80% of the projected future crop irrigation demand is assumed to use bedrock groundwater. Existing out-of-basin supplies are represented as surface water supplies in the receiving basin.
Total Water Demand by Sector
West Central Region
Planning Horizon
Crop Irrigation
Livestock
Municipal & Industrial
Oil & Gas
Self-Supplied Industrial
Self-Supplied Residential
Thermoelectric Power
Total
AFY
2010
54,160
6,090
9,800
2,610
20
1,820
5,180
79,680
2020
57,080
6,180
10,210
4,060
20
1,880
5,780
85,220
2030
60,000
6,280
10,530
5,690
20
1,940
6,440
90,900
2040
62,920
6,370
10,840
7,660
20
1,990
7,190
97,000
2050
65,170
6,460
11,120
9,950
30
2,040
8,020
102,780
2060
68,770
6,560
11,380
12,540
30
2,090
8,950
110,30022 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Public Water Providers
There are more than 1,600 Oklahoma water systems permitted or regulated by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ); 785 systems were analyzed in detail for the 2012 OCWP Update. The public systems selected for inclusion, which collectively supply approximately 94 percent of the state’s current population, consist of municipal or community water systems and rural water districts that were readily identifiable as non-profit, local governmental entities. This and other information provided in the OCWP will support provider-level planning by providing insight into future supply and infrastructure needs.
The West Central Region includes 36 of the 785 public supply systems analyzed for the 2012 OCWP Update. The Public Water Providers map indicates the approximate service areas of these systems. (The map may not accurately represent existing service areas or legal boundaries. In addition, water systems often serve multiple counties and can extend into multiple planning basins and regions.)
In terms of population served (excluding provider-to-provider sales), the five largest systems in the region, in decreasing order, are Weatherford, Clinton, Caddo Co RWD #3, New Cordell Utility Authority, and Burns Flat PWS. Together, these five systems provide service for about 62 percent of the population served by public water providers in the region.
Demands upon public water systems, which comprise the majority of the OCWP’s Municipal and Industrial (M&I) water demand sector, were analyzed at both the basin and provider level. Retail demand projections detailed in the Public Water Provider Demand Forecast table were developed for each of the OCWP providers in the region. These projections include estimated system losses, defined as water lost either during water production or distribution
Public Water Providers
West Central Regionto residential homes and businesses. Retail demands do not include wholesaled water.
OCWP provider demand forecasts are not intended to supersede water demand forecasts developed by individual providers. OCWP analyses were made using a consistent methodology based on accepted data available on a statewide basis. Where available, provider-generated forecasts were also reviewed as part of this effort.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 23
Public Water Providers/Population Served
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Retail Per Capita (GPD)2
Projected Population Served
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
85
856
899
932
964
997
1,019
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
222
507
497
497
486
486
497
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
63
196
196
206
206
215
215
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
321
109
119
119
119
129
129
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
125
2,525
2,607
2,676
2,717
2,785
2,827
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
77
358
367
387
406
416
425
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
300
5,453
5,684
5,863
6,039
6,218
6,378
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
207
150
150
150
150
150
150
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
97
534
554
564
573
583
593
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
132
1,612
1,679
1,737
1,785
1,843
1,891
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
186
778
778
778
778
778
778
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
299
9,057
9,482
9,870
10,266
10,557
10,818
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
144
597
616
636
646
665
675
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
204
405
424
433
453
462
472
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
106
997
1,045
1,087
1,131
1,163
1,191
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
139
129
126
126
126
129
131
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
135
276
286
296
306
315
325
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
141
673
703
722
742
762
782
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
110
27
29
29
29
31
31
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
95
915
959
998
1,038
1,068
1,093
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
245
266
266
276
276
286
286
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
88
469
469
469
469
469
469
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
138
2,193
2,292
2,361
2,430
2,499
2,568
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
208
1,068
1,123
1,150
1,191
1,219
1,246
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
294
205
205
205
205
211
211
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
60
874
874
884
894
915
925
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
101
2,933
3,032
3,111
3,161
3,230
3,279
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
351
800
800
800
800
800
800
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
148
300
300
300
300
300
300
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
50
179
179
179
179
179
179
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
207
197
192
192
192
197
202
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
87
1,261
1,319
1,377
1,434
1,473
1,511
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
161
750
727
727
727
738
762
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
175
1,126
1,161
1,191
1,208
1,237
1,258
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
151
10,138
10,614
11,050
11,487
11,817
12,108
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System
2 RED ENTRY indicates date was taken from 2007 Water Rights Database. GPD=gallons per day.
Population and Demand Projection Data
Provider level population and demand projection data, developed specifically for OCWP analyses, focus on retail customers for whom the system provides direct service. These estimates were generated from Oklahoma Department of Commerce population projections. In addition, the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey contributed critical information on water production and population serviced that was used to calculate per capita water use. Population for 2010 was estimated and may not reflect actual 2010 Census values. Exceptions to this methodology are noted.24 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Projections of Retail Water Demands
Each public water supply system has a “retail” demand, defined as the amount of water used by residential and non-residential customers within that provider’s service area. Public-supplied residential demands include water provided to households for domestic uses both inside and outside the home. Non-residential demands include customer uses at office buildings, shopping centers, industrial parks, schools, churches, hotels, and related locations served by a public water supply system. Retail demands do not include wholesale water to other providers.
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) demand is driven by projected population growth and specific customer characteristics. Demand forecasts for each public system are estimated from average water use (in gallons per capita per day) multiplied by projected population. Oklahoma Department of Commerce 2002 population projections (unpublished special tabulation for the OWRB) were calibrated to 2007 Census estimates and used to establish population growth rates for cities, towns, and rural areas through 2060. Population growth rates were applied to 2007 population-served values for each provider to project future years’ service area (retail) populations.
The main source of data for per capita water use for each provider was the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey conducted by the OWRB in cooperation with the Oklahoma Rural Water Association and Oklahoma Municipal League. For each responding provider, data from the survey included population served, annual average daily demand, total water produced, wholesale purchases and sales between providers, and estimated system losses.
For missing or incomplete data, the weighted average per capita demand was used for the provider’s county. In some cases, provider survey data were supplemented with data from the OWRB water rights database. Per capita supplier demands can vary over time due to precipitation and service area characteristics, such as commercial and industrial activity, tourism, or conservation measures. For the baseline demand projections described here, the per capita demand was held constant through each of the future planning year scenarios. OCWP estimates of potential reductions in demand from conservation measures are analyzed on a basin and regional level, but not for individual provider systems.
Public Water Providers Demand Forecast
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Demand (AFY)
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
82
86
89
92
95
97
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
126
123
123
121
121
123
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
14
14
15
15
15
15
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
39
43
43
43
46
46
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
354
365
375
380
390
396
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
31
32
33
35
36
37
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
1,832
1,910
1,970
2,029
2,090
2,143
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
35
35
35
35
35
35
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
58
60
61
62
63
64
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
238
248
257
264
272
279
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
162
162
162
162
162
162
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
3,031
3,173
3,303
3,436
3,533
3,620
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
96
100
103
104
108
109
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
92
97
99
103
105
108
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
118
124
129
134
138
141
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
20
20
20
20
20
20
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
42
43
45
46
48
49
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
106
111
114
117
120
123
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
0
0
0
0
0
0
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
3
4
4
4
4
4
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
97
102
106
110
114
116
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
73
73
76
76
79
79
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
46
46
46
46
46
46
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
339
354
365
375
386
397
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
248
261
267
277
283
290
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
68
68
68
68
70
70
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
59
59
59
60
61
62
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
332
343
352
358
366
371
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
315
315
315
315
315
315
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
50
50
50
50
50
50
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
10
10
10
10
10
10
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
46
44
44
44
46
47
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
123
129
134
140
144
147
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
135
131
131
131
133
137
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
221
228
233
237
243
247
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
1,711
1,791
1,865
1,938
1,994
2,043
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 25
Wholesale Water Transfers
Some providers sell water on a “wholesale” basis to other providers, effectively increasing the amount of water that the selling provider must deliver and reducing the amount that the purchasing provider diverts from surface and groundwater sources. Wholesale water transfers between public water providers are fairly common and can provide an economical way to meet demands. Wholesale quantities typically vary from year to year depending upon growth, precipitation, emergency conditions, and agreements between systems.
Water transfers between providers can help alleviate costs associated with developing or maintaining infrastructure, such as a reservoir or pipeline; allow access to higher quality or more reliable sources; or provide additional supplies only when required, such as in cases of supply emergencies. Utilizing the 2008 OCWP Provider Survey and OWRB water rights data, the Wholesale Water Transfers table presents a summary of known wholesale arrangements for providers in the region. Transfers can consist of treated or raw water and can occur on a regular basis or only during emergencies. Providers commonly sell to and purchase from multiple water providers.
Public Water Providers Wholesale Transfers
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
Sales
Purchases
Sells To
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
Purchases from
Emergency or Ongoing
Treated or Raw or Both
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
City of Clinton
O
T
BESSIE
OK3007504
Foss Reservoir
Washita RWD 2
O
O
T
T
BUTLER
OK3002001
Foss Reservoir MCD (via Hobart)
O
T
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Gotebo
Cyril
Lawton
T
T
T
CLINTON
OK1010828
City of Arapaho
O
T
Foss Reservoir MCD
O
T
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer County RWD #3
O
T
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer City PWS
O
T
FORT COBB MCD
None
Anadarko WTP (Basin 16, Lower Washita Region)
Chickasha
(Basin 16, Lower Washita Region)
O
O
R
R
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD
OK1010829
Butler
Clinton
Bessie
Hobart
Frontier Dev Auth
New Cordell Utility Auth
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
T
T
T
T
T
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Hobart
(Southwest Region)
Foss Reservoir MCD
O
T
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Caddo Co RWD #3
O
T
HAMMON
OK3006503
Beckham Co RWD #3
O
T
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Roger Mills RWD #2 (Red Star)
O
T
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Foss Reservoir MCD
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Leedey
O
T
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Bessie
O
T
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information System26 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Provider Water Rights
Public water providers using surface water or groundwater obtain water rights from the OWRB. Water providers purchasing water from other suppliers or sources are not required to obtain water rights as long as the furnishing entity has the appropriate water right or other source of authority. Each public water provider’s current water right(s) and source of supply have been summarized in this report. The percentage of each provider’s total 2007 water rights from surface water, alluvial groundwater, and bedrock groundwater supplies was also calculated, indicating the relative proportions of sources available to each provider.
A comparison of existing water rights to projected demands can show when additional water rights or other sources and in what amounts might be needed. Forecasts of conditions for the year 2060 indicate where additional water rights may be needed to satisfy demands by that time. However, in most cases, wholesale water transfers to other providers must also be addressed by the selling provider’s water rights. Thus, the amount of water rights required will exceed the retail demand for a selling provider and will be less than the retail demand for a purchasing provider.
In preparing to meet long-term needs, public water providers should consider strategic factors appropriate to their sources of water. For example, public water providers who use surface water can seek and obtain a “schedule of use” as part of their stream water right, which addresses projected growth and consequent increases in stream water use. Such schedules of use can be employed to address increases that are anticipated to occur over many years or even decades, as an alternative to the usual requirement to use the full authorized amount of stream water in a seven-year period. On the other hand, public water providers that utilize groundwater should consider the prospect that it may be necessary to purchase or lease additional land in order to increase their groundwater rights.
Public Water Provider Water Rights and Withdrawals (2010)
West Central Region
Provider
SDWIS ID1
County
Permitted Quantity
Source
Permitted Surface Water
Permitted Alluvial Groundwater
Permitted Bedrock Groundwater
AFY
Percent
ARAPAHO
OK3002004
Custer
---
---
---
---
ARNETT
OK2002305
Ellis
516
0%
0%
100%
BESSIE
OK3007504
Washita
---
---
---
---
BRIDGEPORT
OK2000804
Caddo
320
---
---
100%
BURNS FLAT PWS
OK2007505
Washita
447
0%
0%
100%
BUTLER
OK3002001
Custer
---
---
---
---
CADDO CO RWD #3
OK2000816
Caddo
4,793
0%
0%
100%
CAMARGO RWD #2
OK2002202
Dewey
320
0%
0%
100%
CANUTE
OK2007503
Washita
153
0%
0%
100%
CARNEGIE
OK2000805
Caddo
839
0%
0%
100%
CHEYENNE
OK1010803
Roger Mills
434
100%
0%
0%
CLINTON
OK1010828
Custer
2,178
76%
0%
24%
CORN PWA
OK2007501
Washita
236
0%
0%
100%
CUSTER CITY PWS
OK2002009
Custer
443
0%
0%
100%
CUSTER COUNTY RWD #3
OK2002040
Custer
400
0%
100%
0%
DEWEY CO RWD #1
OK2002201
Dewey
320
0%
72%
28%
EAKLY DEVELOPMENT CORP
OK2000808
Caddo
232
0%
0%
100%
FORT COBB
OK2000810
Caddo
215
0%
0%
100%
FORT COBB MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
None
Caddo
18,000
100%
0%
0%
FOSS
OK2007508
Washita
459
0%
100%
0%
FOSS RESERVOIR MCD (WHOLESALER ONLY)
OK1010829
Custer
17,634
100%
0%
0%
FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT AUTH
OK3002011
Custer
---
---
---
---
GOTEBO
OK3003801
Kiowa
51
0%
100%
0%
HAMMON
OK3006503
Roger Mills
368
0%
100%
0%
HINTON
OK2000809
Caddo
1,974
0%
0%
100%
HYDRO PWA
OK2000812
Caddo
324
0%
0%
100%
LEEDEY
OK3002201
Dewey
---
---
---
---
MOUNTAIN VIEW PWA
OK2003805
Kiowa
226
0%
0%
100%
NEW CORDELL UTILITY AUTHORITY
OK2007502
Washita
2,371
0%
0%
100%
ROGER MILLS RWD # 2 (RED STAR)
OK2006505
Roger Mills
1130
0%
0%
100%
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #1
OK2006502
Roger Mills
100
0%
100%
0%
ROGER MILLS RWS & SWMD #3
OK2006501
Roger Mills
138
0%
0%
100%
TALOGA
OK2002207
Dewey
341
0%
16%
84%
THOMAS
OK2002001
Custer
1,133
0%
0%
100%
VICI
OK2002203
Dewey
717
0%
0%
100%
WASHITA CO RWD #2
OK2007511
Washita
640
0%
0%
100%
WEATHERFORD
OK2002002
Custer
4,446
0%
0%
100%
1 SDWIS - Safe Drinking Water Information SystemWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 27
Provider Supply Plans
In 2008, a survey was sent to 785 municipal and rural water providers throughout Oklahoma to collect vital background water supply and system information. Additional detail for each of these providers was solicited in 2010 as part of follow-up interviews conducted by the ODEQ. The 2010 interviews sought to confirm key details of the earlier survey and document additional details regarding each provider’s water supply infrastructure and plans. This included information on existing sources of supply (including surface water, groundwater, and other providers), short-term supply and infrastructure plans, and long-term supply and infrastructure plans.
In instances where no new source was identified, maintenance of the current source of supply is expected into the future. Providers may or may not have secured the necessary funding to implement their stated plans concerning infrastructure needs, commonly including additional wells or raw water conveyance, storage, and replacement/upgrade of treatment and distribution systems.
Additional support for individual water providers wishing to pursue enhanced planning efforts is documented in the Public Water Supply Planning Guide. This guide details how information contained in the OCWP Watershed Planning Region Reports and related planning documents can be used to formulate provider-level plans to meet present and future needs of individual water systems.
Caddo County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Camargo RWD 2 (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: none identified.
Town of Canute (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: treatment plant expansion and upgrades.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Carnegie (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Emergency source: Caddo County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Cheyenne (Roger Mills County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Cheyenne City Lake
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main line to town.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Clinton (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Clinton Lake, Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Arapaho (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: City of Clinton
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace portion of distribution system lines; add storage.
Town of Arnett (Ellis County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace well motors; add main shut-off valves.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines.
Town of Bessie (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Foss Reservoir, Washita County RWD 2
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Bridgeport (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells; Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Burns Flat PWS (Osage County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replacement or rehabilitation of town’s infrastructure.
Town of Butler (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Corn PWA (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace lines from wells to town.
Custer City PWS (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer, Purchased water
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New wells and infrastructure improvements.
Custer County RWD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs aquifer, Custer City PWS.
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New wells and other infrastructure improvements.
Dewey County RWD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: redrill existing wells.
Eakly Development Corp. (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add water main lines.
Town of Fort Cobb (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Fort Cobb Reservoir MCD (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Fort Cobb Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
OCWP Provider Survey
West Central Region28 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Town of Foss (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Foss Reservoir MCD (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Rehabilitation of intake structure and tanks; replace pumps.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Frontier Development Authority (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Foss MCD
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tanks.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Gotebo (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Caddo County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Town of Hammon (Roger Mills County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Beckham County RWD 3
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: refurbish storage tower.
Town of Hinton (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Roger Mills RWS & SWMD 3
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines, pumps & valves.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: add storage.
Town of Taloga (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
City of Thomas (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Vici (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines.
Washita County RWD 2
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace water main lines; replace distribution system lines.
City of Weatherford (Custer County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
None identified.
Hydro PWA (Caddo County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional well.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Town of Leedey (Dewey County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Roger Mills RWD 2
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution system lines.
Mountain View PWA (Kiowa County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary source: Rush Springs Aquifer
Short-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells.
New Cordell Utility Authority (Washita County)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Elk City Sandstone Aquifer, Foss Reservoir
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: new pump system.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: increase line capacity from Foss Reservoir.
Roger Mills RWD 2 (Red Star)
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
None identified.
Long-Term Needs
New supply source: drill additional wells. Infrastructure improvements: add storage; replace or add distribution lines.
Roger Mills RWS & SWMD 1
Current Source of Supply
Primary sources: Groundwater
Short-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace distribution lines.
Long-Term Needs
Infrastructure improvements: replace & add distribution lines.
OCWP Provider Survey
West Central RegionWest Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 29
Infrastructure Cost Summary
West Central Region
Provider System Category1
Infrastructure Need (millions of 2007 dollars)
Present - 2020
2021 - 2040
2041 - 2060
Total Period
Small
$62
$324
$74
$460
Medium
$37
$101
$85
$223
Large
$0
$0
$0
$0
Reservoir2
$0
$4
$87
$91
Total
$99
$429
$246
$774
1 Large providers are defined as those serving more than 100,000 people, medium systems as those serving between 3,301 and 100,000 people, and small systems as those serving 3,300 or fewer people.
2 The “reservoir” category refers specifically to rehabilitation projects.
Approximately $774 million is needed to meet the projected drinking water infrastructure • needs of the West Central region over the next 50 years. The largest infrastructure costs are expected to occur between 2021 and 2040.
Distribution and transmission projects account for more than 85% of the providers’ • estimated infrastructure costs, followed distantly by water treatment projects.
Small providers have the largest overall drinking water infrastructure costs.•
Projects involving rehabilitation of existing reservoirs comprise approximately 12% of the • total costs.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Cost Summary
As part of the public water provider analysis, regional cost estimates to meet system drinking water infrastructure needs over the next 50 years were prepared. While it is difficult to account for changes that may occur within this extended time frame, it is beneficial to evaluate, at least on the order-of-magnitude level, the long-range costs of providing potable water.
Project cost estimates were developed for a selection of existing water providers, and then weighted to determine total regional costs. The OCWP method is similar to that utilized by the EPA to determine national drinking water infrastructure costs in 2007. However, the OCWP uses a 50-year planning horizon while the EPA uses a 20-year period. Also, the OCWP includes a broader spectrum of project types rather than limiting projects to those eligible for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. While costs for new reservoirs specific to providers are not included, this study evaluated whether there was an overall need in the region for new surface water supplies. When rehabilitation of existing reservoirs or new reservoir projects were necessary, these costs were applied at the regional level.
More information on the methodology and cost estimates is available in the supplemental report, Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment by Region.30 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Supply Options
Limitations Analysis
For each of the state’s 82 OCWP basins, an analysis of water supply and demand was followed by an analysis of limitations for surface water, bedrock groundwater, and alluvial groundwater use. For surface water, the most pertinent limiting characteristics considered were (1) physical availability of water, (2) permit availability, and (3) water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater, permit availability was not a limiting factor through 2060, and existing data were insufficient to conduct meaningful groundwater quality analyses. Therefore, limitations for major alluvial and bedrock aquifers were related to physical availability of water and included an analysis of both the amount of any forecasted depletion relative to the amount of water in storage and rate at which the depletion was predicted to occur.
Methodologies were developed to assess limitations and assign appropriate scores for each supply source in each basin. For surface water, scores were calculated weighting the characteristics as follows: 50% for physical availability, 30% for permit availability, and 20% for water quality. For alluvial and bedrock groundwater scores, the magnitude of depletion relative to amount of water in storage and rate of depletion were each weighted 50%.
The resulting supply limitation scores were used to rank all 82 basins for surface water, major alluvial groundwater, and major bedrock groundwater sources (see Water Supply Limitations map on page 5). For each source, basins ranking the highest were considered to be “significantly limited” in the ability of that source to meet forecasted demands reliably. Basins with intermediate rankings were considered to be “potentially limited” for that source, and basins with the lowest rankings were considered to be “minimally limited” for that source and not projected to have any gaps or depletions. For bedrock and alluvial groundwater rankings, “potentially limited” was the baseline default given to basins lacking major aquifers due to typically lower yields and insufficient data.
Based on an analysis of all three sources of water, the basins with the most advanced limitations—the most severe water supply challenges—were identified as “Hot Spots.” A discussion of the methodologies used in identifying Hot Spots, results, and recommendations can be found in the OCWP Executive Report.
Primary Options
To provide a range of potential solutions for mitigation of water supply shortages in each of the 82 OCWP basins, five primary options were evaluated for potential effectiveness: (1) demand management, (2) use of out-of-basin supplies, (3) reservoir use, (4) increasing reliance on surface water, and (5) increasing reliance on groundwater. For each basin, the potential effectiveness of each primary option was assigned one of three ratings: (1) typically effective, (2) potentially effective, and (3) likely ineffective (see Water Supply Option Effectiveness map on page 6). No options were necessary in basins where no gaps or depletions were anticipated.
Demand Management
“Demand management” refers to the potential to reduce water demands and alleviate gaps or depletions by implementing drought management or conservation measures. Demand management is a vitally important tool that can be implemented either temporarily or permanently to decrease demand and increase available supply. “Drought management” refers to short-term measures, such as temporary restrictions on outdoor watering, while “conservation measures” refers to long-term activities that result in consistent water savings throughout the year. Municipal and industrial conservation techniques can include modifying customer behaviors, using more efficient plumbing fixtures, or eliminating water leaks. Agricultural conservation techniques can include reducing water demand through more efficient irrigation systems and production of crops with decreased water requirements.
Two specific scenarios for conservation were analyzed for the OCWP—moderate and substantial—to assess the relative effectiveness in reducing statewide water demand in the two largest demand sectors, Municipal/Industrial and Crop Irrigation. For the Watershed Planning Region reports, only moderately expanded conservation activities were considered when assessing the overall effectiveness of Demand Management for each basin. A broader analysis of moderate and substantial conservation measures statewide is discussed below and summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OCWP Executive Report.
Demand management was considered to be “typically effective” in basins where it would likely eliminate both gaps and storage depletions and “potentially effective” in basins where it would likely either reduce gaps and depletions or eliminate either gaps or depletions (but not both). There were no basins where demand management could not reduce gaps and/or storage depletions to at least some extent; therefore this option was not rated “likely ineffective” for any basin.
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Use of “out-of-basin supplies” refers to the option of transferring water through pipelines from a source in one basin to another basin. This option was considered a “potentially effective” solution in all basins due to its general potential in eliminating gaps and depletions. The option was not rated “typically effective” because complexity and cost make it only practical as a long-term solution. The effectiveness of this option for a basin was also assessed with the consideration of potential new reservoir sites within the respective region as identified in the Expanded Options section below and the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Reservoir Use
“Reservoir Use” refers to the development of additional in-basin reservoir storage. Reservoir storage can be provided through increased use of existing facilities, such as reallocation of existing purposes at major federal reservoir sites or rehabilitation of smaller NRCS projects to include municipal and/or industrial water supply, or the construction of new reservoirs.
The effectiveness rating of reservoir use for a basin was based on a hypothetical reservoir located at the furthest downstream basin outlet. Water transmission and legal or water quality constraints were not considered; however, potential constraints in permit availability were noted. A site located further upstream could potentially provide adequate yield to meet demand, but would likely require greater storage than a site located at the basin outlet. The effectiveness rating was also largely contingent upon the existence of previously studied reservoir sites (see the Expanded Options section below) and/or the ability of new streamflow diversions with storage to meet basin water demands.
Reservoir use was considered “typically effective” in basins containing one or more potentially viable reservoir site(s) unless the basin was fully allocated for surface water and had no permit availability. For basins with no permit availability, reservoir use was considered “potentially effective,” since diversions would be limited to existing permits. Reservoir use was also considered “potentially effective” in basins that generate West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 31
sufficient reservoir yield to meet future demand. Statewide, the reservoir use option was considered “likely ineffective” in only three basins (Basins 18, 55, and 66), where it was determined that insufficient streamflow would be available to provide an adequate reservoir yield to meet basin demand.
Increasing Reliance on
Surface Water
“Increasing reliance on surface water” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing surface water use. For baseline analysis, the proportion of future demand supplied by surface water and groundwater for each sector is assumed equal to current proportions. Increasing the use of surface water through direct diversions, without reservoir storage or releases upstream from storage provides a reliable supply option in limited areas of the state and has potential to mitigate bedrock groundwater depletions and/or alluvial groundwater depletions. However, this largely depends upon local conditions concerning the specific location, amount, and timing of the diversion.
Due to this uncertainty, the pronounced periods of low streamflow in many river systems across the state, and the potential to create or augment surface water gaps, this option was considered “typically ineffective” for all basins. The preferred alternative statewide is reservoir use, which provides the most reliable surface water supply source.
Increasing Reliance on
Groundwater
“Increasing reliance on groundwater” refers to changing the surface water-groundwater use ratio to meet future demands by increasing groundwater use. Supplies from major aquifers are particularly reliable because they generally exhibit higher well yields and contain large amounts of water in storage. Minor aquifers can also contain large amounts of water in storage, but well yields are typically lower and may be insufficient to meet the needs of high volume water users. Site-specific information on the suitability of minor aquifers for supply should be considered prior to large-scale use. Additional groundwater supplies may also be developed through artificial recharge (groundwater storage and recovery), which is summarized in the “Expanded Options” section of the OWRB Executive Report.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically effective” in basins where both gaps and depletions could be mitigated in a measured fashion that did not lead to additional groundwater depletions. This option was considered “potentially effective” in basins where surface water gaps could be mitigated by increased groundwater use, but would likely result in increased depletions in either alluvial or bedrock groundwater storage. Increased reliance on groundwater supplies was considered “typically ineffective” in basins where there were no major aquifers.
Expanded Options
In addition to the standard analysis of primary options for each basin, specific OCWP studies were conducted statewide on several more advanced though less conventional options that have potential to reduce basin gaps and depletions. More detailed summaries of these options are available in the OWRB Executive Report. Full reports are available on the OWRB website.
Expanded Conservation Measures
Water conservation was considered an essential component of the “demand management” option in basin-level analysis of options for reducing or eliminating gaps and storage depletions. At the basin level, moderately expanded conservation measures were used as the basis for analyzing effectiveness. In a broader OCWP study, summarized in the OCWP Executive Report and documented in the report Water Demand Forecast Report Addendum: Conservation and Climate Change, both moderately and substantially expanded conservation activities were analyzed at a statewide level for the state’s two largest demand sectors: Municipal/ Industrial (M&I) and Crop Irrigation. For each sector, two scenarios were analyzed: (1) moderately expanded conservation activities, and (2) substantially expanded conservation activities. Water savings for the municipal and industrial and crop irrigation water use sectors were assessed, and for the M&I sector, a cost-benefit analysis was performed to quantify savings associated with reduced costs in drinking water production and decreased wastewater treatment. The energy savings and associated water savings realized as a result of these decreases were also quantified.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1410 requiring the OWRB to develop and implement criteria to prioritize potential locations throughout the state where artificial recharge demonstration projects are most feasible to meet future water supply challenges. A workgroup of numerous water agencies and user groups was organized to identify suitable locations in both alluvial and bedrock aquifers. Fatal flaw and threshold screening analyses resulted in identification of six alluvial sites and nine bedrock sites. These sites were subjected to further analysis that resulted in three sites deemed by the workgroup as having the best potential for artificial recharge demonstration projects.
Where applicable, potential recharge sites are noted in the “Increasing Reliance on Groundwater” option discussion in basin data and analysis sections of the Watershed Planning Region Reports. The site selection methodology and results for the five selected sites are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Artificial Aquifer Recharge Issues and Recommendations.
Marginal Quality Water Sources
In 2008, the Oklahoma Legislature passed Senate Bill 1627 requiring the OWRB to establish a technical workgroup to analyze the expanded use of marginal quality water (MQW) from various sources throughout the state. The group included representatives from state and federal agencies, industry, and other stakeholders. Through facilitated discussions, the group defined MQW as that which has been historically unusable due to technological or economic issues associated with diverting, treating, and/or conveying the water. Five categories of MQW were identified for further characterization and technical analysis: (1) treated wastewater effluent, (2) stormwater runoff, (3) oil and gas flowback/produced water, (4) brackish surface and groundwater, and (5) water with elevated levels of key constituents, such as nitrates, that would require advanced treatment prior to beneficial use.
A phased approach was utilized to meet the study’s objectives, which included quantifying and characterizing MQW sources and their locations for use through 2060, assessing constraints to MQW use, and matching identified sources of MQW with projected water shortages across the state along with a determination of feasibility. Of all the general MQW uses evaluated, water reuse—beneficially using treated wastewater to meet certain demand—is perhaps the most commonly applied elsewhere in the U.S. Similarly, wastewater was determined to be one of the most viable sources of marginal quality water for short-term use in Oklahoma. Results of the workgroup’s study are summarized in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP report Marginal Quality Water Issues and Recommendations.
Potential Reservoir Development
Oklahoma is the location of many reservoirs that provide a dependable, vital water supply source for numerous purposes. While economic, environmental, cultural, and geographical constraints generally limit the construction of new reservoirs, significant interest persists due to their potential in meeting various future needs, particularly those associated with municipalities and feasible regional public supply systems.32 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
As another option to address Oklahoma’s long-range water needs, the OCWP reservoir viability study was initiated to identify potential reservoir sites throughout the state that have been analyzed to various degrees by the OWRB, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other public or private agencies. Principal elements of the study included extensive literature search; identification of criteria to determine a reservoir’s viability; creation of a database to store essential information for each site; evaluation of sites; Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping of the most viable sites; aerial photograph and map reconnaissance; screening of environmental, cultural, and endangered species issues; estimates of updated construction costs; and categorical assessment of viability. The study revealed more than 100 sites statewide. Each was assigned a ranking, ranging from Category 4 (sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development) to Category 0 (sites that exist only on a historical map and for which no study data can be verified).
This analysis does not necessarily indicate an actual need or specific recommendation to build any potential project. Rather, these sites are presented to provide local and regional decision-makers with additional tools as they anticipate future water supply needs and opportunities. Study results present only a cursory examination of the many factors associated with project feasibility or implementation. Detailed investigations would be required in all cases to verify feasibility of construction and implementation. A summary of potential reservoir sites statewide is available in the OCWP Executive Report; more detailed information on the workgroup and study is presented in the OCWP Reservoir Viability Study report.
Potential Reservoir Sites (Categories 3 & 4)
West Central Region
Name
Category
Stream
Basin
Purposes1
Total Storage
Conservation Pool
Primary Study
Updated Cost Estimate2
(2010 dollars)
Surface Area
Storage
Dependable Yield
Date
Agency
AF
Acres
AF
AF/Y
Hydro
4
Canadian River
59
WS, R, F&W
0
20,400
700,000
114,934
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$744,954,000
Mountain View
3
Washita River
19
R, FC, F&W, WS
344,000
9,388
150,000
50,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$162,176,000
Oakwood
3
Canadian River
59
WS, F&W, R
0
22,800
680,000
100,000
1981
Bureau of Reclamation
$710,907,000
Rainy Mountain
3
Rainy Mountain Creek and Sugar Creek
19
FC, WS, F&W, R
211,200
6,739
65,000
5,000
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$113,201,000
Weatherford
3
Deer Creek
59
WS, R, F&W, FC
162,933
2,751
43,475
14,500
1973
Bureau of Reclamation
$120,434,000
1 WS = Water Supply, FC = Flood Control, IR = Irrigation, HP = Hydroelectric Power, WQ = Water Quality, C = Conservation, R = Recreation, FW= Fish & Wildlife, CW = Cooling Water, N = Navigation, LF = Low Flow Regulation
2 The majority of cost estimates were updated using estimated costs from previous project reports combined with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) annual escalation figures to scale the original cost estimates to present-day cost estimates. These estimated costs may not accurately reflect current conditions at the proposed project site and are meant to be used for general comparative purposes only.
Reservoir Project Viability Categorization
Category 4: Sites with at least adequate information that are viable candidates for future development.
Category 3: Sites with sufficient data for analysis, but less than desirable for current viability.
Category 2: Sites that may contain fatal flaws or other factors that could severely impede potential development.
Category 1: Sites with limited available data and lacking essential elements of information.
Category 0: Typically sites that exist only on an historical map. Study data cannot be located or verified.West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 33
Expanded Water Supply Options
West Central RegionDRAFT
35
BASIN 17
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Data & Analysis
West Central Watershed Planning Region
Basin 1736 West Central Regional Report Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 17 Summary
Basin 17 accounts for about 17% of the water demand in the West Central Watershed Planning Region. About 51% of the 2010 basin demand is in the Crop Irrigation demand sector. Thermoelectric Power (39%) is the second-largest demand sector. Surface water and out-of-basin supplies currently satisfy about 38% of the total water demand in the basin. Groundwater satisfies about 62% of the total water demand in the basin (46% bedrock aquifer and 16% alluvial). The peak summer month total water demand in Basin 17 is about 6 times the winter demand, which is similar to the overall statewide pattern.
Historically, the flows of the Washita River at Anadarko are typically greater than 9,000 AF/month. However, the river can have prolonged periods of low flow in any month of the year. The Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District currently supplies water out-of-region to the City of Anadarko, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative’s Anadarko power plant, and the City of Chickasha in Basin 16 (Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region), and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The Public Service Company of Oklahoma also has a power generating plant in Basin 17 and receives its water from Ft. Cobb Reservoir (through the City of Anadarko), as well as from a smaller privately owned reservoir on Leeper Creek, and from the Rush Springs aquifer. Surface water in the basin is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 17 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
Future development of additional groundwater supplies is expected to be mostly from the Crop Irrigation and Thermoelectric demand sectors. The Rush Springs and Washita River aquifers have a combined total of approximately 4.8 million acre-feet of water in storage in the basin. There are no significant basin-wide groundwater quality issues. However, localized areas with high levels of nitrate and fluoride have been found in the Rush Springs aquifer and may occur in Basin 17. The use of groundwater to meet in-basin demand is not expected to be limited by the availability of permits through 2060.
Current Demand by Source and Sector
West Central Region, Basin 17
Total Demand
13,330 AFY
BASIN 17
Synopsis
Most water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on the basin’s alluvial and bedrock aquifers or out-of-basin supplies.
By 2020, surface water gaps may occur during summer months with low streamflows.
Water quality is a potential concern for surface water users.
Surface water in the basin is fully allocated, limiting diversions to existing permitted amounts.
Alluvial and bedrock groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020, but will be minimal in size relative to aquifer storage in the basin. However, localized storage depletions may cause adverse effects for users.
To reduce the risk of adverse impacts on water supplies, it is recommended that storage depletions and gaps be decreased where economically feasible.
Additional conservation could mitigate surface water gaps and reduce the adverse effects of storage depletions.
Use of dependable groundwater supplies and/or developing additional small reservoir storage could mitigate surface water gaps. These supply sources could be used without major impacts to groundwater storage. West Central Regional Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Report 37
of localized storage depletions. Because surface water in the basin is fully allocated, substantial permit issues must be resolved in order to construct larger reservoirs.
Increased reliance on surface water supplies through direct diversions, without reservoir storage, will likely increase surface water gaps. Also, surface water in the basin is fully allocated. Therefore, this water supply option is not recommended.
Increased reliance on groundwater supplies could be used to offset future demands on surface water, but would increase groundwater storage depletions. Any increases in storage depletions would be minimal relative to the volume of water stored in Basin 17’s portion of the Rush Springs aquifer and Washita River aquifer.
The projected 2060 water demand of 20,230 AFY reflects a 6,900 AFY increase (52%) over the 2010 demand. The majority of the demand and growth in demand over this period will be in the Crop Irrigation and Thermoelectric Power demand sectors.
Gaps & Depletions
Based on projected demand and historical hydrology, surface water gaps and groundwater storage depletions may occur by 2020. Surface water gaps will be up to 450 AFY by 2060. Alluvial groundwater storage depletions will be up to 180 AFY by 2060. Surface water gaps and alluvial groundwater storage depletions will occur in spring and summer and will have a 9% probability of occurring in at least one month of these seasons by 2060. Bedrock groundwater storage depletions will be 1,810 AFY on average in 2060 and occur in summer. Projected annual alluvial and bedrock storage depletions are minimal relative to volume of water stored in the major aquifers underlying the basin. However, localized depletions may occur and adversely affect well yields, water quality, and/or pumping costs.
Options
Water users are expected to continue to rely primarily on groundwater supplies. To reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the basin’s water users, storage depletions and gaps should be decreased where economically feasible.
Moderately expanded permanent conservation activities in the Municipal and Industrial and Crop Irrigation sectors could reduce gaps and storage depletions. Due to the low probability of gaps, temporary drought management could be effective at reducing surface water use and subsequent gaps. Temporary drought management activities are not expected to be needed for groundwater demand, since groundwater storage could continue to provide supplies during droughts.
Out-of-basin supplies could be developed to supplement the basin’s water supplies and mitigate gaps. The Fort Cobb Master Conservancy District (MCD) is expected to continue to meet the demand of its users in the basin and in the Lower Washita Watershed Planning Region. Fort Cobb MCD is currently fully allocated; therefore, the district may not be able to meet future needs or demands. The OCWP Reservoir Viability Study, which evaluated the potential for reservoirs throughout the state, identified five potentially viable out-of-basin sites in the West Central Watershed Planning Region. Alternative sources of out-of-basin supplies may not be cost-effective compared to using the abundant in-basin groundwater resources for users not using supplies from the MCD.
Small reservoirs (less than 50 AF) could be used to meet the demand of surface water users or groundwater users experiencing adverse effects
Water Supply Option Effectiveness
West Central Region, Basin 17
Demand Management
Out-of-Basin Supplies
Reservoir Use
Increasing Supply from Surface Water
Increasing Supply from Groundwater
nTypically EffectivenPotentially EffectivenLikely IneffectivenNo Option Necessary
Water Supply Limitations
West Central Region, Basin 17
Surface Water
Alluvial Groundwater
Bedrock Groundwater
nMinimalnPotentialnSignificant
BASIN 17
Median Historical Streamflow
at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
Projected Water Demand
West Central Region, Basin 1738 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Basin 17 Data & Analysis
Historical Precipitation
Regional Climate Division
Surface Water Resources
Historical streamflow from 1950 through • 2007 was used to estimate the potential range of future surface water supplies. The Washita River at Anadarko had a prolonged period of below-average streamflow from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, corresponding to a period of below-average precipitation. The mid 1980s through the mid 2000s had a prolonged period of higher than average streamflow and precipitation, demonstrating the hydrologic variability in the basin.
The range of historical streamflow at the • basin outlet is shown by the average, median and minimum streamflow over a 58-year period of record. The median flow in the Washita River at Anadarko is greater than about 9,000 AF/month throughout the year and greater than 26,000 AF/month in May and June. Historically, Basin 17 can have periods of low flow in any month of the year, except June. Relative to other basins in the state, the surface water quality in Basin 17 is considered poor. However, individual lakes and streams may have acceptable water quality.
There are no significant reservoirs in the • basin.
BASIN 17
Monthly Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
Historical Streamflow at the Basin Outlet
West Central Region, Basin 17
nPrimarily Measured Flows
nMeasured/Synthesized Flows
nSignificant Synthesized Flows
Streamflow Data Source
West Central Region, Basin 17West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis 39
Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
BASIN 17
Groundwater Resources
The majority of current groundwater • rights in Basin 17 are from the Rush Springs aquifer, which has about 4.5 million AF of storage, underlies 82% of the basin, and receives an estimated 18,000 AFY of recharge. There are also water rights in the Washita River aquifer and non-delineated minor bedrock aquifers in Basin 17.
There are no significant groundwater • quality issues in the basin.
Groundwater Resources - Aquifer Summary (2010)
West Central Region, Basin 17
Aquifer
Portion of Basin Overlaying Aquifer
Current Groundwater Rights
Aquifer Storage in Basin
Equal Proportionate Share
Groundwater Available for New Permits
Name
Type
Class1
Percent
AFY
AF
AFY/Acre
AFY
Washita River
Alluvial
Major
5%
3,300
254,000
2.0
10,800
Rush Springs
Bedrock
Major
82%
25,800
4,517,000
temporary 2.0
194,300
Southwestern Oklahoma
Bedrock
Minor
6%
0
17,000
temporary 2.0
12,800
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Bedrock
Minor
N/A
0
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
Non-Delineated Groundwater Source
Alluvial
Minor
N/A
400
N/A
temporary 2.0
N/A
1 Bedrock aquifers with typical yields greater than 50 gpm and alluvial aquifers with typical yields greater than 150 gpm are considered major.40 West Central Regional Report, Basin Data & Analysis Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan
Water Demand
Water demand in Basin 17 accounts for • about 17% of the total demand in the West Central Region and will increase by 52% (6,900 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of the demand over this period will be from the Crop Irrigation demand sector. However, the largest growth in demand will be in the Thermoelectric-Power Demand Sector.
Surface water and out-of-basin supplies • are used to meet 38% of the total demand in Basin 17 and its use will increase by 58% (2,930 AFY) from 2010 to 2060. The majority of surface water use and growth in surface water use over this period will be from the Thermoelectric Power demand sector.
Alluvial groundwater is used to meet • 16% of the total demand in Basin 17 and its use will increase by 68% (1,470 AFY). The majority of alluvial groundwater use and growth in alluvial groundwater use over this period will be